[The Convener opened the public meeting at 10:14]
I am very pleased to welcome the press and public to this meeting. I would also like to welcome Alex Neil MSP, who is in the audience.
Video evidence was shown.
I now open the meeting up to discussion.
A section of the transcript is missing—the piece after "databases in the office". Could I impose on staff to listen to the tape again to try to fill in some of the missing words? I got the impression that there was something important there.
You are absolutely right. There was a definite difference between the transcript and what we heard on the tape. That shows the usefulness of viewing the tape. I will ensure that we look at the tape in depth again to get a transcript of those words.
The video raises some very serious matters, which this committee has a duty to investigate as speedily as possible.
Does the rest of the committee agree that an investigation is definitely needed?
There is a prima facie case for investigation. To encapsulate the video in one sentence: it raises the question of whether a lobby company exercised disproportionate influence over Executive members of the Scottish Parliament and whether there are any grounds for the claims that were made on the video.
I want to support the points made by Karen Gillon and Lord James. The transcript and the video throw up serious issues that need to be considered by the committee and the Parliament. The central issue is whether the company had privileged access to ministers and members of the Scottish Parliament. We need to investigate the matter fully.
Are there any other comments on that?
The important thing for the committee to bear in mind is that the reputation of the Parliament is at stake. We need to ensure that the matter is investigated speedily. I accept Lord James's point that we need to consider the overall issues of regulation, codes of conduct and lobbying.
I agree with all those comments. We have to show some urgency in the matter. You will probably want to discuss the timetable for dealing with the investigation, convener. I agree with Tricia Marwick that we should start with the journalists who brought the matter to our attention in order to flesh out why they took those steps. We could then move on to consider evidence from all the lobbyists that are mentioned in the transcript: Kevin Reid, Alex Barr, Alexandra Thomson, a representative from Apco UK—either the chairman or the managing director—and Gordon Beattie.
The common view of the committee is that we should put our general investigation to one side for the moment and concentrate on the Beattie Media issue, examining the matter in depth. We must sort out the terms of the inquiry before we examine the detail; we need a basis on which to proceed.
Can I clarify which codes apply? We are currently engaged in bringing together a code of conduct for MSPs. However, we need to know which codes apply to this case, particularly in terms of the ministerial code.
I am happy to do that. As far as I understand it, according to our standing orders—I asked for legal advice on the matter last week—the ministerial code applies and that falls within the remit of the committee.
I take it that the wording of the remit makes it quite clear that it is open to us to make recommendations in due course?
Indeed. I do not think that this would shut out any options. I took the point to be that the committee needed to clarify whether it would consider the ministerial code; my interpretation of our standing orders is that that is the case.
I want to raise an issue that relates to the order in which we deal with material. If we accept the idea that we are going to consider evidence of breaches of any codes—that is our function—we must start with Beattie Media, because its comments have generated the investigation.
Before we discuss the method of the investigation, I want to be sure that all members are happy with the terms of reference.
I think that the terms of reference are adequate, taking into account the need for a speedy resolution of the issue and the greater public interest. That is also in the interests of the Parliament, which must remain paramount, above the party political interests of all members.
So we are agreed on the terms of reference and can move on to Des McNulty's point about the method of investigation.
The real issue is whether there is a substantive breach. Using the transcript, we need to identify the areas in which we feel there might be a breach. That will establish the parameters in which we operate. We can work outwards from that.
I accept that point. We should concentrate on the allegations made by Beattie employees. We also need to find out why the journalists from The Observer decided to act as they did. Did they have information that led them to target Beattie Media rather than another company? Why did they do it? Those are the questions that have not yet been answered. By questioning the journalists, members of the committee might gain a better idea about the direction of the inquiry and what questions they should be asking Beattie Media.
I am quite clear from the terms of the inquiry that the substance of our investigation is the material that is before us. Some very serious implications—having seen the tape, I do not know that we could call them allegations—were made on matters relating to the code of conduct of MSPs.
I agree with Karen that we need to speak to representatives of Beattie Media as a matter of urgency. However, it would be logical first to speak to the journalists who have brought the matter to our attention. We can speak to them on the same day as we speak to the "lobbyists". We can tease out some of the issues that—as Karen says—are implied in the transcript.
The natural progression should be: first, the journalists who brought the complaint in the first place; secondly, Mr Alex Barr, Mr Gordon Beattie, Mr Reid and—perhaps—Mr Alex Thomson from Beattie Media; thirdly, the staff; finally, the ministers.
We have mentioned many people who we may wish to call before us as witnesses. The committee has the power to ask them to be on oath. Does the committee agree that that should happen?
It has been indicated to us that people have said one thing at one stage and something else at another. It would be appropriate to have people—certainly those that are on the video—on oath. Do other members agree?
If time is critical—we all agree that it is—the sequence of witnesses may be a problem. However, we do not know that yet. We should examine why the journalists from The Observer did what they did and consider the lobbyists, staff and finally MSPs and ministers.
I am not convinced about the staff argument, because no allegations were made against most people. All the transcript says is that somebody "was at my wedding". A lot of people were at my wedding. Being at a wedding is not necessarily relevant. I would be happy for us to speak to Christina Marshall, as a specific allegation that we should deal with has been made. The appropriate mechanism is—as Lord James suggested—for somebody to look at the diaries and report back to the committee.
I do not think that anyone is suggesting all staff. Is that right?
Specific members of staff are mentioned. The question of how easy they are to contact had come up. Kevin Reid said that the fact that they are all friends of his makes it easy. He said:
I suggest that we decide—along the lines of what has been suggested—that we deal with the evidence from The Observer on Beattie Media. That should frame the terrain in which we are operating. We will want to see the ministers. In general, they have indicated that they wish to be seen. Once we have dealt with the first element of the matter, which is Beattie Media, we should look at the order in which we see people. We do not need to discuss where the investigation will go before we have heard from those people.
I agree with Des. It is important that the inquiry starts as quickly as possible. We should not argue about whether it is the journalists from The Observer or the people from Beattie Media who come first. It should be left to the officials to try to get both sets of people in front of us, as a matter of urgency. We all feel that we may have to work through the recess in order to get the inquiry on track, but we need to leave the timetabling to the officials. There is no point in saying that we would like Beattie Media or The Observer first if we cannot get them. I would like one or other of those groups to come before us on Friday, if the clerks can arrange that. It might not be possible, but the committee needs to get a message out that it wants to investigate the matter openly, honestly and as quickly as possible.
If for any reason a special adviser cannot take evidence on commission, it is within the powers of the committee to co-opt somebody who can. The necessary information should be collected, whatever it comprises; the committee has the power to organise for that to be done.
I would like to seek authority from the Parliamentary Bureau to appoint a special adviser—to support our current team—who could do precisely what Lord James suggests.
I will do that.
I emphasise that one important word is missing from the summing up, which is that we will do this in public, so that we are clear and everyone understands what we are about.
I am glad that you reminded me about that, Patricia, as it seems to be of such interest to the wider public. That is absolutely right. I would like to go on record as reminding the committee, the press and public who are watching that if you look through the previous minutes and the Official Report—the equivalent of Hansard—you will see that every member of this committee has committed themselves to openness, accountability and accessibility. Those are the themes that run through the committee. We reserve the right to meet in private in exceptional circumstances. This investigation—and certainly the evidence that is gathered—will be in public view. Is that accepted by everybody?
I will ask the Parliamentary Bureau whether we can appoint a special adviser, the idea being that that person will lead the team in sifting through all the technical information that members have requested. That has been minuted. That sift might take some time, but that individual will present a report to the committee and we will move swiftly to interview anybody who has been suggested. I remind everybody that, although we have already suggested who we want to interview, the list is not exhaustive. We will not be hemmed in by anything that we have decided today. We have to see where the investigation takes us. The point of the investigation is that we want to act quickly, openly and effectively.
For that reason, I suggest that we set ourselves a deadline by which we should at least have completed the gathering of evidence, and a second deadline by which we hope to have reported on our findings. We do not want to run on and on and for public confidence to be diminished.
It is going to take some time to gather the depth of information—as Lord James mentioned—that we want. We are looking at a time scale of possibly Thursday, but certainly Friday, for the first interviews, establishing a special adviser post—subject to the Parliamentary Bureau's agreement, and launching the investigation.
It is important that the information, the correspondence and the relevant extracts from the diaries should be before the committee.
Indeed, Lord James. So that there is no confusion, let me explain that the purpose of the special adviser leading the clerking team of the Standards Committee into this investigation will be to sift and examine the material and present the material—with the report—to us. I hope that that is clear.
We need to give the special adviser a steer about the kind of material that we wish to be collected. To start that process off, I suggest that we need the diaries, particularly Jack McConnell's. We need to see his constituency diaries, his office diaries and his electronic system.
I think that we should meet on Friday, regardless of whether we can get the witnesses by that time. We will then know whether we will have a special adviser. The Standards Committee will lead the investigation and the special adviser will support us. It is appropriate that we come to our meeting on Friday with the detail of the guidance that we want to give to the special adviser and the clerking team.
We have a lot of work ahead of us and we want to act quickly. Thank you for coming to this meeting of the Standards Committee.
Meeting closed at 11:45.