Our first agenda item is the taking of evidence in relation to our inquiry into allegations reported in The Observer newspaper. We have invited the following persons to attend and give evidence to the committee: Dean Nelson of The Observer, Ben Laurance of The Observer, Alex Barr of Beattie Media, Kevin Reid of Beattie Media and Gordon Beattie of Beattie Media.
It makes sense to call the witnesses one by one. One member should lead the eliciting of information from witnesses and other members can ask questions afterwards.
Are we all agreed?
Yes.
Are we agreed on the order of appearance?
Yes.
One person will take the lead in asking questions of particular witnesses, as Lord James has suggested. I propose that members lead questions to individual witnesses as follows: Des McNulty will lead questioning of Mr Nelson; Tricia Marwick will lead questioning of Mr Laurance; Karen Gillon will lead with Mr Barr; Lord James with Mr Reid; and Adam Ingram with Mr Beattie.
It would be appropriate to ask witnesses whether they want to make a brief presentation. I emphasise, however, that statements should be brief—certainly no more than five minutes.
Are we all agreed?
Yes.
We have agreed, therefore, that witnesses will be invited to give evidence one by one. We reserve the right to ask any witness to make additional comments, particularly in the light of evidence given by other witnesses. The order of appearance of witnesses will be: Mr Nelson, Mr Laurance, Mr Barr, Mr Reid and Mr Beattie.
We may want witnesses to consider giving us further written evidence once we have finished questioning them.
That would be most appropriate. Are there any other comments? If not, I will move on. I should point out that when I suggested that certain members take the lead on questioning of witnesses, I did not mean that only those members would be able to ask questions. I propose to allow a particular line of questioning to be chosen and to be pursued, but that does not prevent other members from coming in afterwards. Please feel free to ask questions.
Broadly speaking, I want to ask Dean Nelson about when he got the information about the meeting between Ben Laurance and Beattie Media and about the decisions that were made by The Observer about publishing the story. I want to know what assessments were made of the information that the paper had. I want to ask what contact Mr Nelson has had with people from Beattie Media and about the information that has been presented to us in terms of completion.
Tricia, what line would you like to take with Mr Laurance?
It is broadly similar to the questions to Dean Nelson. What were the reasons for the meeting with the staff of Beattie Media? What were the details of the meeting, and how did it come about? Did The Observer target Beattie Media, as opposed to any other public relations company operating in Scotland, for a particular reason?
Karen, what is your line of questioning to Mr Barr?
What were the arrangements? Why did he attend? I would like details and substantiation of the claims that were made in the transcript regarding named politicians and staff. I would also like an explanation of the business methods that were used and of the contacts programme that is mentioned in the transcript. What is his attitude towards regulation of lobbying activities, because that is mentioned in the transcript as well?
Lord James, what is your line of questioning?
I am sorry, but is Karen Gillon's last question within our remit?
It relates particularly to the part of the transcript in which Mr Barr makes reference to a code of conduct that is currently in place and to his belief that it is not adequate.
I think that that question would be appropriate.
I want to ask questions arising out of what is recorded in the transcript and to follow those through.
There are two or three matters that I want to discuss with Gordon Beattie: first, the activity of Beattie Media, including the business methods involving contacts with politicians; secondly, the recruitment of staff from political parties; thirdly, the role of particular members of staff, including former members named in the transcripts.
I would like to remind everyone present at today's meeting that the witnesses have come before the committee by invitation. Although I expect that they will wish to co-operate as fully as possible with our inquiry, they cannot be compelled to answer any question. In accordance with the committee's wishes, I will require all witnesses to take the oath or to make an affirmation. Only witnesses will be able to respond to questions put by committee members. However, witnesses' advisers will be able to confer with and advise them. Advisers cannot address the committee directly, unless invited to do so by me. Witnesses should, therefore, indicate to me if their adviser wishes to address the committee—for example, on a matter of procedure.
Good morning.
Thank you for coming. I appreciate your responding to our invitation. I would like to remind you that you are required to give evidence under oath. We will administer the oath first. I understand that you wish to take the oath, rather than to make an affirmation.
Absolutely.
Mr Nelson, I believe that you would like to make an opening statement. Is that correct?
It is.
Thank you, Mr Nelson. I would like to move straight to questions now. Des, would you like to start?
My first question, Dean, is: did you have advance knowledge of the meeting between Ben Laurance and the staff of Beattie Media?
Yes, I arranged it.
You arranged it. My next question is: at what stage did you get information back from the meeting, at which you were not present?
As soon as the meeting was concluded I met Ben, we had a discussion, and I had another look at the tape on a small digital machine. It was immediately after the meeting.
My third question is this. In your view, did the information that you had provide the basis for making any allegation of wrongful conduct against any MSP named in the transcript?
There were a number of particular claims that were corroborated. As far as we are concerned, they remain claims for this committee to investigate. However, we believe that they are very serious claims, because a number of points that representatives of the company made were in fact corroborated. For example, they claimed to be able to place an appointment in the finance minister's diary and that Christina Marshall, the minister's secretary, had pencilled it into his diary. When I phoned Christina Marshall on the Friday before 26 September, she confirmed that she had indeed pencilled it into his diary.
I understand what you are saying about the claims made by Beattie Media. I am just asking you for a yes/no answer. In your judgment, did the information in your possession after the interview provide a basis for making any allegation of wrongful conduct against any MSPs or ministers?
We have not made any allegation of wrongful conduct by a minister.
That is fine. Why, given that you got the information quickly after the meeting on 31 August, did you not publish the story until Sunday, 26 September?
The intention was to go ahead and arrange a meeting. We left the meeting—or rather my colleague Ben Laurance left the meeting—with an understanding that the company would attempt to arrange a meeting with a minister from the Executive. So, at the end of the meeting, there was unfinished business.
So it was because you were following up the story between 31 August and 26 September that you decided to delay publication?
Yes. They had told us that it would not be a problem, in their words, to fix up a meeting. The next stage of the investigation was to establish whether or not they could in fact fix up that meeting. That was the next stage and we were moving on to that. We believe that the company became suspicious and cancelled, so we never got to that stage. Once it became clear that the process was not going to carry on, we examined our material and looked into the issue of publishing.
Can I be quite clear about this? In the transcript it says clearly that they said that they thought that they would be able to deliver a meeting with Jack McConnell within a month. Did you delay publication in the hope of having a confirmed date for a meeting with that minister in order to strengthen your story?
Absolutely. They claimed that they were able to fix a meeting with the minister and we had to establish whether or not they could do that.
That was a most responsible action. You were trying to find out whether that was something that they could deliver.
Absolutely.
And did they deliver?
No. As I said, we received a letter—I cannot remember the date of the letter, but I can provide you with a copy—saying that they were too busy to act for us, so contact was cancelled. That followed an incident that I shall explain to members. We used a company—it was not a fake company, it was a real company—and the people there had a script so that, if there was a call for our businessmen, they could take a message and our businessmen would get back to them. One day, a number of people were away or sick and there was some confusion at that end, so Beattie Media became suspicious.
Can I pursue that a little further? At what point do you think that the company became suspicious and at what point did it indicate that it would no longer act for you?
I believe that it was a few weeks after the meeting.
It would be useful for us to have that confirmed.
I can provide the letter.
That would be helpful. The original claim was that the company could deliver that in a month, no problem. If the company backed out after a week, we do not know whether or not that claim can be substantiated, but if it was after three weeks, that would be close to the point by which the company had said that it would deliver. That would demonstrate its incapability of delivering what it had claimed.
My colleague might remember the date. The letter was sent to him.
In your opening statement, you said that your investigation into lobbyists began after you were contacted by concerned politicians. Would you like to elaborate on who those concerned politicians were?
The conversations that I had with those people were off the record. I have since been back to the people concerned and I have asked if they would free me of any obligation to them in that respect, but they asked to remain anonymous. I have to respect that.
When you say politicians, do you mean MSPs or MPs or councillors?
I am not talking about anyone in those categories. I really do not want to compromise their anonymity. I have to keep my promise to them.
You were not contacted by MSPs?
No.
If the politicians who approached you were concerned about lobbying generally, why did you decide to deal with Beattie Media?
There were two factors in that decision. First, Beattie Media had made high-profile claims about having higher standards than everybody else. Secondly, there was the allegation that it had hired the Secretary of State for Scotland's son to trade on his contact with his father to win business. People said, "Kevin Reid is a young man, not long out of university, he has no real experience of the world, yet he is stepping into Jack McConnell's shoes and doing a very high-powered job for which he can have no qualification other than his family connection."
To clarify, Dean, am I right in thinking that after you got the initial evidence, you pursued a line of inquiry to determine whether you could take that story one stage further and try to discover evidence of wrongful conduct?
Absolutely. There were two urgent things to do. One was to pursue a meeting with a member of the Executive, and the other was to do the transcript, which was a laborious task.
But today you are saying that you were not successful in establishing that there had been wrongful conduct?
We have not claimed to establish wrongful conduct. We have brought our evidence to you in the hope that the committee can establish the truth of the claims.
That is fine, but I am trying to establish the fact that you attempted to demonstrate wrongful conduct but were not successful.
You have misunderstood me. We attempted to establish whether the company could deliver on its claim to be able to fix up a meeting with a minister.
How did you, as a professional journalist, attempt to check on the truth of the claims of Beattie Media?
Once we had a transcript, we had to whittle down the main allegations in terms of contact with ministers and senior advisers, and contact people. On the Friday morning, I think 24 September, I contacted Sam Galbraith's former secretary—from when he was sports minister. She confirmed to me that he attended a football match with the chief executive of the Scottish Premier League.
Can I be clear: when did you do this? You mentioned 24 September.
Yes—on Friday.
So you had the information from 31 August—
No, you have misunderstood me.
I am sorry. I just want to be clear.
There was a long process of doing the transcript. I do not know whether you have ever transcribed a tape. It is very difficult. On this particular tape, which members have now seen, there was a lot of background noise. There was an air conditioner. It was painstaking. There was also the process of getting the tapes filtered. We used a cameraman, Alistair Miller, who is based in Stirling. A lot of time was spent at his studio there, going through the tapes, filtering, filtering and filtering until we had a copy that we could do a decent transcript of.
Just so that I am clear: you had the information on the tapes shortly after the meeting. You did not seek to clean up the tapes or provide the transcript until you had pursued your inquiries further.
The investigation was incomplete at that stage.
At what stage did you start to work on the transcripts?
I had listened to the tape and we had the gist of what it said. A full transcript was not produced until the week before publication.
Who made the decision to publish the story?
I did. I discussed it with the news desk in London and we agreed to go ahead on Sunday 26 September. There had been a possibility of speeding things up the week before, but it came at a very late stage and there was still a lot of work to do on the transcript. I wanted to ensure that the tapes were better filtered before we went ahead.
You had thought that you might defer the story for a further week?
No. I think on the Thursday—what date would the Thursday before Sunday 19th be? It was the 16th. We knew then that our business with Beattie Media was at an end and we had to decide whether we could do everything that we needed for that Sunday's newspaper. We decided that we could not because there was too much to do. We deferred for a week and set about work in earnest.
Are you finished, Des?
No, I have two more questions. Is the transcript that was delivered to us on 29 September a complete record of the meeting on 31 August?
No. We had the tape digitally filtered on the Thursday after you first met to discuss this issue. It was returned to us later that week, and that is the best quality tape so far. We provided that to the committee—as an audio tape—on Monday of this week. That is the best record of the meeting. We have not yet updated our transcript to take that tape into account. It does not change the meaning of what is on the tape—there are words here and there, but nothing significant.
Is there any other material relevant to this inquiry in your possession?
Yes. There are some transcripts of shorthand notes attached to the material that we e-mailed to you all at 8 o'clock last night, and in the hard copy that you received this morning. I can provide fuller transcripts of the interviews at a later stage.
Tricia, you have been trying to get in.
On that very point, Mr Nelson, you said that you telephoned Christina Marshall, Jack McConnell's secretary, on Friday 25 September. You claim that she said that she had told Beattie Media that she would pencil the engagement into the minister's diary for consideration. Your report of that goes on for three or four paragraphs. Did you tape that conversation?
No, I took a contemporaneous shorthand note.
You had a telephone conversation with Jack McConnell on Saturday 26th in which he said—agreed—that Ms Marshall would discuss the invitation with him, that she was waiting for a formal invitation and that it was pencilled into her notebook. Do you have a tape of that?
No. Again, I took a shorthand note. I can provide the committee with a full transcript of that interview. What we have done is provide the sections of interviews that we believe are relevant to the issues. I can get a full transcript to you early next week.
When you spoke to Christina Marshall, presumably you mentioned the fact that your previous conversation with representatives of Beattie Media had been taped?
I do not think that I did. I said that I had spoken to Beattie Media, or rather that The Observer had spoken to Alex Barr, who had said that he had fixed up an appointment for Jack McConnell to speak at the finance director of the year award in February next year. Christina Marshall confirmed that she had had that conversation, that Alex Barr had called her and that she had pencilled it into the diary for Jack McConnell's consideration.
Can you explain how she reacted to the questions? Was she surprised?
She did not seem alarmed. She seemed honest. She did not become overly concerned until I pressed her on what particular issues she discussed with Beattie Media. At that point she became nervous and said that she did not want to discuss that with me until she had had a chance to talk to Jack McConnell about it.
How would you interpret the demeanour of Jack McConnell in the telephone conversation that you had with him on 26 September? Was he surprised at your call?
No. He had known about it from the day before. From the moment, I believe, on Friday when we began talking to people such as Christina Marshall and ministers' secretaries and so on, the alarm bells started ringing and everybody knew what kind of story we were pursuing.
This is just for clarification—not being a journalist, I do not know how long it usually takes to crosscheck a story of this sort. You began crosschecking on the evening of 24 September, and you published on 26 September?
Yes.
That would be a normal time span?
No. From Thursday night and Friday morning.
So from the evening of 23 September to 26 September you were crosschecking with all the ministers who were named—with their diaries and their personal assistants. That would be a normal time span for checking something like this.
Yes.
Were there any people to whom you could not get through?
I did not get through to Beattie Media. I believe that my colleague may have had correspondence or a discussion with the company.
Ben Laurance?
Yes, but you would have to check that with Ben.
Right. I will want to come back and look at that. The crosschecking is important.
Are there any other questions?
Did you have any contact with Beattie Media before this inquiry started?
Had I personally?
Yes.
No.
Have you had any contact with other lobbying companies?
Not in this investigation. The investigation began with Beattie Media and we published as soon as we were in a position to do so.
So you had no contact with Beattie Media's competitors who might have suggested that Beattie Media had an advantage over them?
No. Lobbying is a very tight world. There are contacts and friendships between lobbyists. Given the nature of our exercise, we could not do anything that would compromise it. We did not want them to find out that we were from The Observer until our inquiry had run its course; that is, until we had found out whether a meeting was going to be fixed up.
Was there not some kind of backlash in the lobbying industry to the notion that Beattie Media had higher standards than other lobbying companies and to the fact that Beattie Media was taking a particular line on its standards in the media and with politicians?
Do I think that Beattie Media's claims to have higher standards has caused the backlash within the industry?
A backlash against Beattie Media.
There have been articles that suggested that there has possibly been a bit of needle between Beattie Media and other companies, but we did not have contact with other lobbyists. Until our investigation had run its course with Beattie Media—to the point of establishing whether Beattie Media would fix up a meeting—we did not talk to anybody. Otherwise, Beattie Media could have known what we were up to. We had to be very disciplined about that part of the investigation. Once that had been included, we had to approach everybody openly, read the transcript to them and ask for their response. That was how it was conducted.
What was your view with regard to the difference in standards between Beattie Media and other lobbying companies?
I think that the transcripts speak for themselves. It is clearly making claims of access to ministers, and of being able to put things in diaries, which the ministers deny. It has since wound up its lobbying arm and apologised for making certain claims. I do not think, on the face of it, that its standards are any higher. It is a matter for this committee to establish whether it falls somewhat below everybody else's standards.
Are there any more questions from members?
I have only one question. Mr Nelson has raised a lot of issues. Did I hear you correctly when you said that you are making no allegation of wrongful conduct by an MSP?
We have not made any allegation of wrongful conduct. We have brought our investigation to this committee, as the proper authority, to take it further. We have investigated up to this point; we now bring it to you and hope that you will establish the truth of the claims that were made by Beattie Media. As I said, we wish you every success and all the support that we can give you with that.
Thank you.
Thank you very much, Mr Nelson. You are welcome to join the audience.
What I would like to do is start off the line of questioning with Tricia Marwick.
Good morning, Mr Laurance.
Good morning.
We have heard from Dean Nelson about the reasons behind the sting, if it can be called that. When were you first involved in the planning process?
I would guess that it was probably about 10 days before the 31 August meeting—there or thereabouts—when Dean rang me and gave me an outline of the potential story as he saw it. I am a business journalist by background and he asked me whether I would be prepared to help.
Is this the kind of work that you had done before?
I have never done it before.
An interesting experience?
It is a terrifying experience. It is quite unpleasant, actually.
Specifically, were Alex Barr and Kevin Reid the staff of Beattie Media that you had hoped would come to your meeting? Did you specifically ask for Kevin Reid and Alex Barr?
No. What happened was—this may help with Mr McNulty's concerns about the timing—should I do that, Mr Rumbles?
Yes, please.
Dean had written a letter to them, and a couple of phone calls had been exchanged between Kevin Reid and his assistant, Alex, on one hand, and the company that we were using, on the other. It was agreed that a meeting would be held between Anthony James and Mr Reid in Edinburgh, on 31 August. That was fixed up by Dean.
Does anyone else have a question?
When Mr Nelson discussed the operation with you, did you discuss alternative approaches to obtaining the information about lobbying in Scotland that you sought?
I did not know anything at all about lobbying in Scotland.
As a journalist, did you discuss what attempts had already been made? The decision was made—I quote from the statement made by The Observer—that, as
When Dean and I first discussed the matter, I asked him to send me all the material that had been published—some of which he has already mentioned. Dean said that he had discussed it with the editor—who has the final responsibility for our conduct—and had asked him whether he was happy that, in the circumstances, we should proceed in such a way. The editor had said that that was fine as long as there was no other way of doing it.
I am not really questioning your participation in the operation. I want to know what information pre-dated the decision to go undercover and whether you had it.
I am sorry if I am unclear about your question. The only information that I had was given to me by Dean: the tip-offs, which we mentioned in the statement, and previously published material. He has much greater experience of investigative work than I do and he had some thoughts about how we might approach the story. I did not have any independent information.
Were you briefed as to a particular line to take in the meeting, in terms of individuals who might be exposed by the operation?
We were examining Beattie Media and its claims to have contacts at the highest levels of Scottish political life—it says that on its website.
Of course.
We were trying to check out the extent of Beattie Media's claims. We were clearly trying to discover whether Kevin Reid, as the son of the Secretary of State for Scotland and as a result of his former role as a Labour party operator, was going to be used as part of the marketing pitch.
Right. Thank you.
Are there any more questions?
Meeting suspended.
On resuming—
I would like to resume the meeting after that short break and welcome Alex Barr. Thank you for accepting our invitation to give evidence to the committee today. Would you like to introduce your adviser before we start?
This is Mr Rod McKenzie of Harper MacLeod, Solicitors in Glasgow.
Mr Barr, I understand that you wish to make a solemn affirmation. Please stand.
I would like to call on Karen Gillon first.
Does Mr Barr have a statement to make?
I beg your pardon. Mr Barr, will you give your opening statement?
I am grateful to the committee for giving me the opportunity to give my version of this affair. I was keen that any substantive statement would by heard first by an inquiry into the matter. As my brief written statement has made clear, I deeply regret the impact that this matter has had on individuals, organisations, politicians and the Parliament itself.
Thank you. Karen, would you like to lead the questions?
Thank you for your statement, Mr Barr. You will be aware that the reason that the committee has decided to investigate further the matters raised with us by The Observer is that we have viewed the video of you, Mr Reid and Mr Laurance and have read the transcript. Can you tell us, initially, how the meeting with Ben Laurance was arranged?
Yes. I believe that Kevin received a telephone call asking for information on the public affairs service that we could provide with regard to someone who was interested in investing in private finance initiative projects in Scotland. The first I knew about the meeting was a couple of days beforehand. Gordon Beattie, our managing director, had said that he intended to accompany Kevin to the meeting to pitch for public relations work alongside any public affairs work that the fictitious client might be interested in. A couple of days beforehand, Gordon informed me that he had a conflict of diaries and asked me if I could attend. I also had a conflict of diaries but cancelled two meetings and attended the meeting with Kevin that morning.
So your reason for going was to bid for what you perceived to be a PR contract?
I was sure—confident—that I would be able to convince the businessman that he should also consider PR as part of his strategy.
You said in your statement that you assumed that that is what you were doing. Therefore, can I ask you to confirm that you were delivering a standard sales pitch, as can be evidenced from part of the video?
It certainly started off as a standard sales pitch, as you will see from the transcript. However, it became obvious during the meeting that every time that I mentioned public relations, Mr James was not particularly interested and that was how he responded.
So the manner in which you conducted yourself in this meeting is not the manner in which you would normally conduct yourself when representing Beattie Media?
No, it was not. Usually, it is a straightforward PR pitch.
Can you elaborate on why that was the case?
In a normal meeting, I would concentrate on public relations, which is my area of expertise. I would not have strayed into public affairs. However, it was obvious that the client was almost exclusively interested in public affairs.
Unless anyone has other questions on this introductory stage, I will move on to specific points.
Sure. As I said in my opening statement, it was a sales pitch, and I was trying to impress the potential client. However, in the normal way, when someone has worked with you and got on well with members of staff and left on good terms, l expected that there would be some contact. I have since been informed that that was not the case. In fact, the last time that I spoke to Mr McConnell was, I think, just prior to the election, when I bumped into him—
Can I confirm that in the transcript, you say that you yourself had regular contact with Jack McConnell—
I think I say, "we're in regular contact"—
So you are not in regular contact with Jack McConnell?
Not me, personally.
When and how did you obtain Jack McConnell's pager and home phone numbers?
I am sorry. Could you—
When and how did you obtain Jack McConnell's pager and home phone numbers?
Within Beattie Media, any new employee's details go on to a telephone list, so that we can contact them 24 hours a day. I have a pager. My home phone number and my mobile number are all on that list. It was under those circumstances that I was given those details.
When was the last time that that list was revised?
We recruit very regularly, because of the growth of the company. The last time that that list was revised will have been last week some time.
But, specifically, in relation to Mr McConnell's details on your database, when was it revised?
It would have been revised when he left the company.
So the list has not been revised since Mr McConnell left the company.
No—sorry. It has been revised since Mr McConnell left the company several times. In relation to Mr McConnell, his name is no longer on the list. However, I have a contacts book that I use regularly and his details are in that contacts book. I have not used those numbers since he left.
Can I ask you to supply to this committee the contacts that you have for Jack McConnell, please?
I certainly can.
Thank you.
On that issue, you say that you speak to Jack regularly, that you can pick up the phone. You go on to say,
Indeed.
Will the whole contacts list be made available to the committee?
You may look through it as you wish.
You talked about a contacts strategy. Can you give the committee some indication of what a contacts strategy is?
I do not know whether I referred specifically to a contacts strategy at the meeting.
A contacts programme.
It was in the letter. It would be normal—again, I am straying into the public affairs aspects of this matter—for a client to want to meet specific people. That would be organised through normal channels, either by contacting a member's constituency office or via the Parliament.
But every PR company has a contacts programme. Is it not the case, for example, that every time you speak to somebody you record that and what the discussion was about?
No.
You do not?
No, I am sorry. I can easily speak to 40 or 50 people in a day.
Do you not register that?
I do not keep a record of that as a matter of routine.
Beattie Media does not do that?
If it is relevant and I need to take notes to back up the conversation I will do that, but it is not a matter of routine.
I want to go back to your original statement. You said that The Observer transcript was not a "full, unedited version", that
Yes, I can. If you have the transcript before you and it is the same as mine, the paragraph appears on the page whose first word is "worried". I think that it is the third last page. It comes immediately after "consider it done". AB on that page says
Sorry to interrupt, but can we clarify where you are quoting from? You must be using a different transcript.
I think that Richard will find that we are on the page that starts
I was sitting in front of my television in my living room with my two-year-old boy making noise in the background and still managed to hear it.
I think that it is perfectly possible that not everything on the tape has been picked up, even though it has been gone through again. However, the clerks' transcript reads:
Knowing what I said, if you listen to the tape again you will hear it.
I understand the point that you are making, Mr Barr, but should that comment not be viewed in the context of the other statements that you made during the course of the meeting? You said that your company operates by putting clients in front of the politicians, and that your job, as a lobbyist, is to set up meetings for the clients, rather than to speak directly to the politicians. Essentially, you said that you were uniquely placed to do that because of your contacts with politicians. Are you not trying to put a red herring before the committee this morning?
No, I certainly would not say that we are uniquely placed to do it. What I would say is that it is far more open and transparent if meetings are arranged and conducted by the clients themselves, having been given advice and guidance by us, rather than have lobbyists do it. That is by far the most open way.
In that context, was your statement just part of the pitch that you were making?
That would be the case.
Another point that I wanted to pick up on was that you indicated that, halfway through the meeting, you got the impression that the clients were not looking for PR and you changed your pitch, as it were, or your approach.
There were certainly some comments and questions that we responded to that did not refer to PR, but you will see that, throughout the transcript, I attempted to steer the conversation back to that.
I put it to you that right up front, at the very start of the meeting, you stated:
Of course. What I was doing was leading into an introduction to Kevin, having given the PR pitch. As I have pointed out already, in the context of a sales pitch, I overstated aspects of our activities, and that is one example of how I tried to show that we were perhaps cleverer than we were.
The point that you were making in your statement was that that sales pitch to that particular company was unusual. That was almost your first statement.
It was unusual in that we were ostensibly pitching for public affairs work, and that is unusual.
Before asking other members to ask questions, I would like a point of clarification. I refer members to the final page of the transcript. I pointed out that the clerks had gone through the transcript again, at the request of Tricia Marwick, to see whether we could get any more detail from it. At the top of that page, you were asked:
I meant a corporate we—Beattie Media.
Does that include yourself?
No. I have not done so since the election.
Do you think that that was misleading?
As I have explained, at the time that I said it I believed that there was more contact between Jack as a former employee and other Beattie Media staff than there actually is. I was happy to have that clarified for me.
I will go back to where we were, Mr Barr. Can you tell me, from your contacts book, which you have in front of you, what your pager number is for Jack McConnell?
The numbers that I have for Jack may be ex-directory numbers. I have four here.
His pager number, please?
The number looks like it is 0976 760 533.
That is the only number that you have in your book as a pager number for Jack McConnell?
Sorry?
That is the only pager number within your contacts list that you have as a pager number for Jack McConnell?
Can I point out that he has offered to make all of this available to us?
It is an important point, convener.
I am glad to let you see the numbers. Those are all the numbers that I have for him. I will be glad to let you see the book.
That is a point that I will perhaps raise with your colleague, because that is not the pager number referred to by either of you in the transcript.
The last conversation that I had with Christina Marshall was the telephone conversation that is referred to within the transcript.
Can you tell us initially, what was the purpose of that call?
The purpose of that call was, as the transcript shows, that we handle PR for the financial director of the year awards. We were asked as part of that PR contract to suggest a speaker, in fact two speakers, one of whom is not a political figure. I suggested that it would be appropriate that, as Mr McConnell is the Minister for Finance, he might wish to speak at it. The client liked that idea. I called Christina and gave her an outline of what the event would entail. I suggested to her that it would be a good opportunity for Jack to meet with people in the financial sector, get some good coverage and make a speech.
What, specifically, did you ask Christina Marshall to do?
I asked Christina to check Jack's diary and inquire as to whether Jack would be willing to do that. She said to me, words to the effect of, "I will pencil it in. If you have not heard back from me in a couple of days, then you can consider it confirmed."
Those are slightly different words from those that you use in the transcript, Mr Barr. Can you explain the difference?
I do not know what the difference that you refer to is. I am sorry.
The words that you used, Mr Barr, were "consider it done."
I think that if you read on in the transcript, I said:
Can I ask you roughly when this telephone conversation took place?
It would be a couple of months ago, perhaps 10 weeks, something like that.
So did you hear back from Christina Marshall within two days?
No. On the back of that, having inquired as to another speaker, my assumption was that it was confirmed.
So you are assuming that Mr McConnell is speaking at the finance director of the year award?
That was certainly my assumption before this started.
Okay, you have not had any confirmation in writing to that effect but you are assuming from your telephone conversation with Christina Marshall that, if you did not hear back from her in two days, that was going to happen?
Yes, I said also that I would send her some information nearer the time.
Is that normal practice for Beattie Media?
Yes, there is certainly nothing out of the ordinary with that, but the fact that I knew Christina and she was able to be assured, knowing that she had worked with me helped the process because I did not have to explain it in the same way as I had to explain it the previous year when we asked Alex Salmond. I contacted Alex Salmond's constituency office in Banff and spoke to one of his workers, a chap, and explained on the phone to him in the exact same way, but I had to go through the rigmarole of who I was and who Beattie Media was, and what not. I sent some details a few weeks later and got the confirmation back that Mr Salmond would do it. He turned up and gave a speech.
Are your clients under the assumption that Jack McConnell will speak at the finance director of the year awards?
Given the media coverage, they may have a seed of doubt in their minds.
Prior to 26 September?
Absolutely. Prior to this, I attended a meeting with them and explained the conversation I had had with him and that it was expected that he would give a speech.
On the strength of a telephone conversation with an employee of a minister, you have confirmed with—I assume—a pretty high-profile client that the minister will be attending. Would it be embarrassing for your company if that was not the case?
It is something that I will have to deal with. Having said that, in the conversation I had with Christina she told me that I should consider it confirmed unless I heard back from her, which I did not. I know her to be reliable and meticulous, and I am sure that she would have called me back had there been any dubiety.
I want to be clear about patterns here. We have clarified the situation with regard to Jack McConnell and Christina Marshall, and you have mentioned Alex Salmond. In terms of other MSPs, do you regularly do business by phoning them up and asking them to confirm? If you happen to know their diary secretary, you effectively short-circuit that process.
Christina is the only diary—or constituency—secretary I know. On some occasions, I have to explain who I am and what the company does. On other occasions, the client wishes to make that contact themselves.
I understand that, but is it the pattern that you would phone up the diary secretary or try to contact one of the staff of the MSP and ask them to pencil it in their diary? If they agree to that, that is fine.
I would have to stress that that is purely on public relations work; it is not public affairs work.
I understand that.
We would contact their office, either by telephone or by letter, extend an invitation and get confirmation back from them.
So the only unusual thing was that because you knew Christina Marshall you were able to expedite this more quickly and with more confidence than you would normally?
That is right.
I return to the statement that you gave us this morning. You said that when you went to the meeting, The Observer deceived you. You and Kevin had thought that you were in a competitive business pitch against other agencies and responded accordingly. We are asked to view the conversation in the context of people who were encouraged to sell themselves and their capabilities to achieve The Observer's predetermined and concealed aims. I believe that Mr Reid—and no doubt he will speak for himself later—is relatively inexperienced, but you are a professional media and public affairs officer who has been around for about 10 years and is a director of Beattie Media. Do you honestly mean to tell us that that was a one-off occasion on which your tongue ran away with you?
My experience is in public relations; not public affairs. It happened that I was in the meeting to sell on public relations. The supposed businessman was driving the conversation towards the subject of access all the time. It is not something that I have been involved with before.
Tricia—
Can I be allowed to explore this?
I know that the relationship is important, but bear it in mind that this committee of inquiry is about MSPs' conduct.
I will bear that in mind.
The E coli incident was public relations. I went in to sell public relations and not public affairs. That is not something that I have done before or since.
Is it not the case that, rather than this being a one-off, you saw yourself as being in a competitive business and you were selling what people would believe were your contacts in the Parliament to make them give you the contract?
As I said, I went to sell public relations, not public affairs. If there has been any dubiety caused as a result of that, that is the explanation for it.
Is it not the case that that would be your normal pitch, rather than an unusual one?
Absolutely not.
I would like to go back to your contact with Christina Marshall. You know her and seem to be able to cut to the chase when trying to set up Mr McConnell for a number of engagements. Do you contact Christina more regularly than you do other people?
No. It was only for one engagement, and that—to my knowledge—is the only time that I have spoken to Christina since she left Beattie Media.
You indicated that you had not spoken to Mr McConnell since the election. What contact has Beattie Media had with Mr McConnell since the election?
You would have to ask Gordon Beattie about that. Having discussed the matter with him, I believe that he has been in touch with Jack a couple of times. I am not aware of anyone else in the company having done so.
So, essentially, what you said in the meeting with Mr Laurance was entirely untrue?
That has proved to be the case, but I have explained a couple of times before about the relationship with a former employee.
By putting your relationship with Mr McConnell up front, the implication is that Beattie Media had some sort of on-going relationship with McConnell. The fact that McConnell was hired with the certain knowledge that he would be a member of the Scottish Parliament and probably a minister suggests that there might have been some sort of post-election strategy. Has there been such a strategy?
Absolutely not. There has been no impropriety, to my knowledge, concerning politicians—MPs or MSPs or members of their staff—and anyone from Beattie Media.
I presume that Jack McConnell would have received any invitation to the finance director of the year award ceremony in his capacity as a minister.
It would be in his capacity as the finance minister. That is what would make it appropriate.
Would it not be normal to put a request for the finance minister to attend such a conference through his ministerial private office?
Surely. With hindsight, I can say that that would be the case. I have explained the case for contacting Christina in terms of not requiring to establish credibility.
Presumably, if he was to attend the meeting as a minister, the contact would have had to go through the private office in any case?
That may well be the case. I would have to say that I contacted Christina because I knew her. I am not particularly familiar with the machinations of private office or ministerial office. I am sorry.
Given the fact that Beattie Media is a major PR firm within Scottish public life, I suggest that the machinations of how to contact a minister or invite a minister to be involved in anything should be very much part of your information base and how you would conduct yourself. There is a clear code of conduct on how to invite ministers to meetings—are you saying that you are not aware of that?
In specific circumstances, if we have a contact number or it is easier to do it via the constituency office, we would do that.
Is it not normal practice, Mr Barr, to follow that up in writing, so that that can be passed on to the appropriate ministerial office?
It is, and I undertook to provide further details to Christina in writing nearer the time.
Why was that not done between the period of the telephone conversation and 26 September when The Observer published its article?
First, I was unaware that The Observer was going to write an article on us. Equally, the event itself does not take place until February. There were still some logistical arrangements to be made.
I remain unconvinced, Mr Barr, that you would tell a major client that you had confirmed a speaker without first confirming that through the appropriate channels. Is that normal practice?
It was not a normal circumstance, in that if Christina told me that she would come back to me and I should take it as confirmed if she did not come back to me—I know her to be meticulous. I would have expected a phone call.
Mr Barr, bear it in mind that we are not examining your conduct particularly; we are focusing on the conduct of MSPs.
I just want to be clear, because this is an important point that the committee may wish to come back to.
Did you want to ask further questions, Karen?
Not on Mr McConnell. I will have other questions later.
I want to come back in later on the letter that has been produced today, but if Karen has other questions, she should ask them now.
Convener, it is important that we go through the various ministers involved and clarify the assumptions or otherwise that are made in the transcript. The next minister to be mentioned is Sam Galbraith, the minister for sport. On this part of the transcript, I am not completely clear which game you are referring to. Perhaps you could clarify that.
My recollection is that it was Rangers v Beitar Jerusalem in a champions league pre-qualifying match at Ibrox stadium.
What was the date of that match, roughly?
I think it was at the beginning of October last year.
Therefore, the matter would not be competent for this Parliament, because it predates—
We are looking at the conduct of MSPs, who were elected in May.
However, I would like to clarify a couple of points, because that would be in the interests of the Parliament and the MSPs.
Of course. I am happy to do that.
What role did your company play in securing Mr Galbraith's attendance, and how was that attendance achieved?
The chief executive of the Scottish Premier League was appointed in the first week of August prior to that. Although he is a Scot, he had been working for several years in Italy. He came back, was appointed and had to hit the ground running as the football season was about to start. He had very little administrative support and he had said that as part of his on-going work he wanted to meet people of influence—politicians, journalists, people from the sports community.
I will not comment on that.
That is right.
Why then did you take credit for the minister accepting that engagement?
In the transcript, I say that "we" invited Sam Galbraith in the same way that the editor of The Observer spoke about "we". It meant the corporate we. I often refer to clients in that way.
As I understand it from what you have said under oath at this meeting, you—Beattie Media—had no direct contact with the minister in relation to this invitation.
It was my suggestion to my client.
I understand that. It is very important to us that Beattie Media did not contact Mr Sam Galbraith, the sports minister, on any occasion, in relation to this invitation. Therefore, the claims that you made in the transcript were inaccurate.
Yes, I would admit that to be the case.
The claim that you made in the transcript is wrong; is that right?
Yes, you could take it like that.
I want to move on to the Loch Lomond project and to the two MSPs who are mentioned. One is Henry McLeish. In the transcript you say that
I would have to explain that.
Please do.
I will. Two weeks prior to that event, which was on a Monday, I was on annual leave. Our event management team was asked to organise that event and our PR team was involved in the public relations aspects of the contract. When we are asked to organise an event, I handle the PR. It is not unusual for us to invite the VIP guests, whoever they may be. I was under the impression that that had happened in this case. Having checked the matter, I have found that the client sent the invitation to the office of Donald Dewar, who passed it to Mr McLeish, and that we did not handle the invitation.
Let me get this quite clear: Beattie Media did not write the letter requesting a ministerial appearance with the golden eagle.
That is correct.
Was Beattie Media responsible for the press release about it?
That would be right. I imagine that there would also be a press release from the minister's office, but the main press release on the day would have been sent by us.
So your clients, who need all the expertise that you can bring to them, had to write their own letter because you did not realise that one has to go through ministerial offices?
No, I have to say—
So you do know that one has to go through ministerial offices?
I will just finish. I was aware that we were organising the event. As I said before, it is not unusual when we organise events that we also handle the invitations to the VIPs. However, if the client wishes to do that, that is entirely appropriate.
So your client, who is paying all that money for your expertise, knows the processes for getting a minister to an event better than you do?
They may wish to exercise their right to send a letter on their behalf, or they may ask us to do it for them.
Okay.
My solicitor wishes to make a representation.
Is it a procedural point that he wishes to make? He may address the committee.
I fail to see how the way in which Beattie Media handles its PR business is relevant to the conduct of MSPs.
That is a relevant point. Tricia, we should focus on the behavioural aspects of the MSPs. That is what is important; that is the remit of this investigation.
I was trying to establish whether Beattie Media had been in liaison with the Scottish Executive's press office before the press release was put out. I think that that is germane to the Parliament itself.
We should focus a little bit more specifically on the behaviour of MSPs.
Did you liaise with the Scottish Office press office?
I would have to check that for you. I did not handle that work. As I said, I was on a fortnight's holiday immediately prior to that.
What was the date of this event that we are talking about—the date?
It was Monday 19 July.
That sounds right.
Is that correct?
Yes.
Thank you.
You indicate in your discussion with Mr Laurance—and this is really following on from Tricia's comments—that it was as a direct result of your company's involvement that you were able to secure Mr McLeish at this event. It now transpires, from what you have said, that, again, the claim that you made to the person concerned was false.
I am happy to admit that. Having said that, at the time I believed it to be the case.
On that point, I amplify the fact that, in the previous part of the transcript it is Kevin who says that, but he turns to you and says:
I am unaware of any other.
Fine. I shall come back to that.
I shall move on to Jackie Baillie. You hinted that there was a problem with the Loch Lomond project, and that it had to be sold in a particular way, so you
I have to say that I had no involvement in that. I think that those are Kevin's comments, not mine.
Sorry, my mistake.
Do members have any more questions?
Not in relation to Mr McLeish.
We shall move on from Mr McLeish.
I have a few other questions, Mr Barr.
Carry on.
Can you perhaps—just to tie some things up for us—explain your offer to facilitate face-to-face meetings between clients and the Executive to the businessman whom you met on behalf of The Observer?
Sorry, could you repeat that?
Can you explain your offer to facilitate face-to-face meetings between clients and the Executive, which is something that is in the transcript?
Could you point that out to me?
It is all through it.
I take your point. Yes.
The transcript says:
Yes.
Karen Gillon: Then you say:
"What time scale are we talking about?
BL: Sorry?
AB: What time scale are we talking about?
BL: In the next month?
AB: That should be achievable."
Yes, indeed.
It carries on:
As can be seen from the transcript, the way that the question is phrased, within a sales context, is very clever:
Let me just clarify something, because all through the transcript—and you made particular reference to it in your statement—you said that you could not guarantee access to any minister.
That is right.
Yet, at this point, when the man specifically asked you whether you believed that you would be able to facilitate a face-to-face meeting between his client and the Executive, you said that it would probably be possible within a month—despite having said that you could not guarantee that.
Yes, I said that it should be achievable; I did not say, "Yes, I can promise that. Yes, I can guarantee it."
So why did you say that it should be achievable?
Because, at that time, I believed that it might be possible for someone who was seeking to invest major amounts of money in the Scottish economy to have a discussion with the relevant politician.
Is that how you would normally go about things?
I do not see anything particularly wrong with it.
So you think that that would be achievable—that you could facilitate a face-to-face meeting between a client whom you do not yet know and a member of the Executive?
As I say, in the context of a sales meeting, that was the answer that I gave to him.
Is that a yes?
It was something that I would try to achieve.
I have a couple of points to make about that, referring to the letter that you then wrote. Although you were indicating at that point that you thought that that was achievable, you then wrote in a letter, dated 31 August, that
This is the first time that I have been involved in public affairs to this degree.
This restating of the position—which I know that you state a couple of times in the transcript—is really very strong indeed. Was that discussed with other members of—
I am sorry—which restating?
The restating that it would be
Indeed, and that is the position.
Is that something that you discussed in relation to this particular meeting, or is it something—
Just in general.
In general. Do you have a code of conduct within the company in relation to the lobbying of ministers?
You would have to refer that to Kevin. As I say, it is not my area of expertise.
But you are a director of the company.
Yes, but I work primarily and almost exclusively on the public relations side.
To follow on, can I ask—
On the advice of my solicitor, I should say that the letter that was written on 31 August was written in consultation with Kevin, who gave a public affairs input.
That is helpful.
I want to clarify a couple of things that came out from the evidence of the people who spoke to us previously. In your view, why did Beattie Media pull out of the contract with those clients? Was it because you became suspicious, or was it because you could not deliver the meeting with the Executive within the time scale that you had said that you might be able to achieve?
We did not progress with the business because, having sent the letter restating that we could not promise access to ministers, I received a letter back—a copy of which I do not have, but which my solicitor will be able to produce—which said that it took on board all that we said, but could we forget all about that, and could you still set up meetings with ministers? The letter that I sent to him was pitching for the ability to deliver a wide-ranging PR strategy, including information gathering and other aspects. It became clear on receipt of that letter that the businessman was interested only in access, which was not business that we wanted to pursue. As a result, I understand that Kevin made contact with him and told him that we did not wish to proceed.
At what point did you raise the matter of this approach with Mr Beattie?
The matter of the approach? I raised it when I received the letter back from Anthony James, saying, "Let's see if you can get us access to politicians." I put a copy of the letter on Gordon's desk. Although the letter was dated 8 September, I think, it was nearer 15 or 16 September when it arrived with us. It was sent to our Edinburgh office, as opposed to our Glasgow office.
Having passed a copy on to his desk, what response did you receive? Was there a discussion within the company about it?
The next I heard was that Gordon had discussed the matter with Kevin and that a decision had been taken not to proceed with the work. That was the last involvement that I had until—
This should be my final question. I will see how it goes. An assertion appears a couple of times in the transcript, but I would like you to elaborate on it, given the discussion that we have had about Mr McLeish and Mr Galbraith. Can you elaborate on your assertion in the video that you were
Surely. In the main, I believe, contact was made via clients. I will be able to give you examples of when Beattie Media has been directly involved. I will be glad to give you that information.
I have only one question. Did you receive any information about the content of forthcoming announcements on the part of the Administration, either from MSPs or from their advisers?
I am sorry, but I am not clear what you mean.
I will ask again. One of the suggestions made by The Observer is that advance information was given to Beattie Media in connection with the financial statement that was forthcoming.
Absolutely not.
Did you have any advance information about any Administration statements before they were made?
None at all. Having read The Observer that day and having watched television on the Sunday, it became clear that the information contained within that report was apparently broadcast on national television the day before.
My question has two parts. When did you become aware of the fact that this was a subterfuge?
I think it was the Friday evening prior to the Sunday when the report was published.
Friday evening on 24 September. Did you have any suspicions that this might be something or were there any discussions within the office?
I will be honest. I did not give it another thought once I had put the letter on Gordon's desk and had heard that we had decided not to proceed with the work. It came as something of a shock.
As far as you were concerned, therefore, the decision to withdraw, the date of which has been given as 16 September by previous witnesses, was made on the basis that the client was asking for specific access to politicians and was not interested in the package that you were offering and that it was, therefore, not business for which you wanted to pitch.
Precisely.
Thank you.
I noticed a turn of phrase that you used. You said, "I will be honest." All the evidence that you are giving us is on that basis.
Of course. Thank you.
I have a couple of final points. In the letter that you sent to Mr Anthony James, you said:
It was merely credentials. It was giving background to the people who worked within the company, just as we would in a public relations pitch. That was written in conjunction with the public affairs section of the company.
So, on the one hand, you are saying that there is no preferential or priority access to ministers; on the other hand, in the almost-final paragraph of your letter, you are saying that, of course, Alex and Kevin have those Labour party contacts. Is not that saying two things? Is there not, yet again, a general hint in your letter, which is supposed to clear up the matter, that you can give such access to ministers?
Absolutely not. I think that I was, if you read the beginning of the letter, which mentions in-depth monitoring, merely trying to demonstrate the expertise of the people within the department, in terms of monitoring and research.
I wish to make what is perhaps a helpful suggestion, Mr Barr, that, in future, you do not try to draw other people into something as part of a sales pitch, which you cannot justify further down the line.
We have to remember, Karen, that we are talking about MSPs' conduct.
The letter that came back from Anthony James on 8 September has just been passed to me. He thanks me for my letter of 31 August and goes on to say:
What was the point of that? Why are you reading this? What point are you trying to make to us?
The point that I was trying to make was that Anthony James acknowledges that we said that we would not be able to secure access; he acknowledges that we would not operate behind closed doors. However, the specific tenor of his letter was, "I'm looking for access." That was one of the reasons why we decided that we did not wish to pursue it.
It highlights the fact that Kevin Reid is John Reid's son, an issue that Kevin himself brought up.
I have to say that, having been in the meeting and having looked at the tape, far from Kevin boasting that the secretary of state was his father, he mentioned it in almost an embarrassed fashion. That would my interpretation of it. If you look at the tape, you will see that.
I will put the question to Kevin whether he is embarrassed about being his father's son, but it was Kevin himself who raised the fact that he was John Reid's son. You are—
I am sure that Kevin will testify to that in his own terms.
We can ask the witness later on, Tricia.
Meeting suspended.
On resuming—
Welcome, Mr Reid. Thank you for accepting our invitation to give evidence today. Before we start, I remind you that you are required to give evidence under oath. I understand that you wish to take the oath.
Yes.
You have an opening statement that you would like to make.
I welcome this opportunity to speak to the committee. For the past fortnight, I have been subject to sustained attacks on my integrity, often from those who have not read the full transcript of what took place on 31 August 1999.
Thank you. I would like to reiterate, both to you and to committee members, that we are not investigating your behaviour. It is the conduct of MSPs that we are looking at, and to do that, we must look at how your actions have impacted upon that. Lord James, you would like to lead off with questions.
Thank you for your statement, Mr Reid. I think that I am correct in saying that on page 6 of the transcript you are recorded as saying:
Yes.
Who did you think that Mr Laurance represented?
I understood that it was a company called Commercial and Legal Services (UK) Ltd. He said that he represented a group of American investors.
Was the meeting arranged through a telephone call, or through more formal communications?
Contrary to what has been said earlier, telephone calls were made to my office during my honeymoon, asking for me specifically. When I returned, I was told about the calls and I asked Alex Thompson to get their details if they called back. There were one or two return calls. I am not sure of the details, because I was not in the office. They asked for me specifically, and I asked for details about the meeting in writing. A fax was sent from Commercial and Legal Services (UK) Ltd, saying that they would like to meet us.
We have Beattie Media's letter of 31 August. Is there any other correspondence from Beattie Media?
No. I did not send a letter to say that we had turned their business down. I did that over the phone.
Why did you and Alex Barr agree to the meeting?
I initially agreed to the meeting believing that it was to discuss PFI. That is what I researched and that is what I wanted to talk about. I mentioned to Gordon that I had been contacted and that the meeting was taking place. He said that he would come along, because he is the chief executive.
Did you think that you would be delivering a normal sales pitch?
I did not even know if it was going to be a sales pitch, to be honest. I had an inquiry about PFI in Scotland from someone who said that he was based down south and did not understand the environment. I did not know if it was going to lead to a sales pitch.
When you heard that you had been secretly filmed and recorded from under the table, did it come as something of a shock to you?
Yes, it was a shock.
Would you have expressed yourself differently if you had been prepared for your remarks to be made public?
In some ways, if I was prepared for my remarks to be made public, I might have, but I was trying to be honest in answering the questions. I have looked at the way the questions were put to me, and I do not think that there are many other ways in which I can answer, if someone keeps asking me who I know and what access I can provide. I can only say eventually, "Right, this is who I know, but I am not going to give you any access."
I think that you may have answered this on the last page of your statement. You said:
No.
Have you spoken to any special advisers on matters relating to your business?
No, not about business.
So the answer to that question is an emphatic no?
Yes.
Did you make contact with MSPs or ministers of the Executive on the telephone, by pager, or by letter in connection with the business of your company?
No.
Did you, at any stage, try to arrange a meeting, or meetings, with MSPs or Scottish Executive ministers?
No, not in relation to any business. I met one MSP for lunch; he paid for the lunch.
That is a social matter. Did you make any contact relating to the business of your clients?
No, none at all.
In the transcript you make reference to several big clients that have been won since May. Which clients are they?
The Multiple Sclerosis Society in Scotland and the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority.
Were MSPs involved?
No. The work with those clients was just in the primary stages.
What is the significance of the tie-up with Apco UK? Does that have anything to do with MSPs?
No. Apco UK is a public affairs company based in London. It was the London arm of our operation and we were its Scottish arm.
Did that have anything in particular to do with Scottish MSPs?
It did not.
In the transcript, you are quoted as saying that
My view was—and still is—that the Parliament was set up to be open, so that anyone could have access to the e-mail addresses and work phone numbers of MSPs. I was trying to illustrate the point that it was not about access—that was not an issue. I was trying to explain to the gentleman that it was political knowledge that I could provide—it was nothing to do with access.
On page 6 of the transcript, you are quoted as saying that
In the context of what I was saying, yes. I had been continually asked who I knew and what access I could provide. I explained who I knew and I tried to explain that the fact that I used to work for the Labour party does not work against me. Rather, it gives me an understanding of the politicians and of political issues. That does not mean that I provide access. It means that I can give a political opinion to my clients. That is the understanding.
Which of the special advisers are close personal friends of yours?
Chris Winslow.
You said that you have not discussed business matters with him since the election. Did you receive information about the content of forthcoming announcements by MSPs, before those announcements were made?
No. I used to work in media monitoring and I read the papers and watch television. That is where I got my information.
The Observer has alleged that you had information about the financial statement on the two-year budget plan. Was that public knowledge when you mentioned it?
My information came from the television and the newspapers. I think that a television reporter has confirmed that. Furthermore, as the Westminster Government is following a three-year plan, it is obvious that after the first year of that, there would be two years left. That is where I got my information.
Page 11 of the transcript states:
I had no contact with anyone—elected or otherwise—working on the budget. No, it was not inside information.
On page 9 of the transcript, Lord Macdonald's name is mentioned. What was your involvement with Lord Macdonald of Tradeston over Federal Express? Did that involve any MSPs?
No. I was in London, at Apco UK's headquarters, with the pitch for the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority. My opposite number at Apco UK told me that Federal Express was one of its clients and asked if I knew anything about the Scottish situation regarding fifth and sixth freedoms. I said that I remembered reading in the 1997 SNP manifesto that the party was calling for those freedoms to be opened up. I made a call to my colleague in Scotland and asked him to fax a copy of that to Apco UK.
On page 9 of the transcript, you referred to:
If I have regret for anything I said during the meeting it is saying that that was pushed through. It was a consultation process, so it was not pushed through. I was just emphasising that it was the objective of one of Apco's clients; I did not mean to imply anything by it.
When you said "that was pushed through", did you mean that your company had pushed it through?
No. I just meant that the decision was taken.
You said of Henry McLeish:
That was actually a question to Alex Barr. I knew that he had not done anything in public affairs, but I knew that he was doing the Loch Lomond project. It was about a PR issue and you will see that there is a question mark after it. I was asking Alex Barr, "hasn't he?"
On page 9, you are quoted as saying:
I was explaining that I was not sure whether he had done a couple of things. That is why I was asking Alex Barr, "hasn't he?"
I see. Can you tell us what were the details, content and timing of the briefing given by Beattie Media to Jackie Baillie?
No briefing was given by Beattie Media to Jackie Baillie.
On page 9, about two thirds of the way down, you say:
I referred to we meaning myself as part of the client's team.
So, if they had interpreted that to mean that the company had briefed Jackie Baillie, that would have been incorrect.
Yes. That would have been incorrect.
I see. On the next page, Kenny MacAskill's name is mentioned. Did you have any contact with Kenny MacAskill?
No. As I have explained, my office was trying to find some information on coal. We did not ask specifically for Kenny MacAskill. I mentioned it because of the ease with which we got through. We asked for a spokesman from the SNP and were put straight through to Kenny. I was explaining that because I was surprised.
On page 10, when asked about fixing a possible meeting with ministers, you said, "Probably Jack?" Why was that?
The question was about who it should be, based on the criteria that had been given to me. I wanted to know which minister would be appropriate. I was not saying that we could probably fix a meeting with Jack. I was saying that it would probably be Jack if we were talking about someone who deals with finance and PFI.
I think that the phrase "regular contact" was used at some stage.
By me?
Were you in regular contact with Jack?
No. I have not spoken to him since the election.
When did you give a pager to Jack McConnell?
Prior to the election. Part of my job was to—
Did you say during the election or just after the election?
No. It was before the election—around January.
I think that you may already have answered this question, but have you paged him on any business matter since then?
No.
When did you last page him on it?
It was part of my job to send out pager messages to all Labour MSPs—sorry, I mean all Labour candidates—before the election.
One of the allegations is that Beattie Media had claimed that it had been able to place an appointment in the Minister for Finance's diary. Would you deny that?
I knew nothing about it. I still, to be honest, do not know the details of it, because it was not within public affairs and that is all that I dealt with.
You are a professional lobbyist, are you not?
Yes.
Would I be right in saying that, in the main, your lobbying has concerned Scotland and events within Scotland?
Yes.
What qualifications and abilities caused you to become a lobbyist in Scotland?
I have a degree in history with politics and a law degree, and I have worked for a political party.
Thank you.
Turning to the last page of the transcript, you say:
I am sorry, I was slipping into the past tense and speaking as a member of the Labour party.
So it was in the context of your previous employment?
Yes.
He was a Labour party candidate.
When I worked for the Labour party, he was one of our candidates.
Thank you.
I find it a bit peculiar that a professional lobbyist does not have any contact with any MSP, minister in the Scottish Executive or UK minister. When did you start work with Beattie Media?
I was offered the contract on 23 March and I started on 17 May.
What does your work entail?
It entails supplying biographical details of MSPs to clients and monitoring the Scottish Parliament, and the far wider remit of looking at what our clients are doing and explaining to them that—for example, if they are in construction—it is not just about the building they are making but the effect that they have on the community, the jobs they create and the environment. It entails explaining to them the channels that that information should be disseminated through, explaining which local politicians and members of the Executive will be interested. It does not involve me talking to the politicians.
In the meeting, you described your role on the public affairs side of the operation and Alex Thompson's role, which was mainly on the monitoring side. You were on the campaigning side. What were you campaigning on and to whom?
I was advising my clients on how best to send information about their company to politicians. That is not the monitoring side; that is the campaigning side.
So campaigning essentially involves advising your clients on how to contact ministers?
Yes.
How do you know how to contact ministers?
I am not talking about the process of contacting ministers, but how best to explain to them what the companies are doing and how to word that in such a way that it promotes what they are doing. I did not advise them, "There is a phone number or there is an address," but told them, "You are doing good things here. You should send the message out that you will create this number of jobs."
How do you know how to advise people on contacting ministers and MSPs if you do not do it yourself?
I did not advise people on how to contact ministers. I give them the address of the Scottish Parliament and I advise them on the text of what they do and what sort of information to send, not where that information is to go.
What value is that to your clients?
It is of value because my clients want to build up a positive relationship with the public and the elected members.
I turn to a comment that was made by one of your colleagues, Alex Barr, at the meeting in the Balmoral. The context is that you had been asked about your relationship with other people. Alex said:
I cannot speak for anyone else, or for their words. I can only come here and defend what I have said.
Okay.
Do you have any more questions, Adam?
No.
I have a couple of points that I would like to raise for the purposes of clarification. On Jack's pager number, was Jack, to your knowledge, on the same pager system as all other Labour party candidates?
Yes.
So that would be an 0181 345 6789 number, followed by a code?
The only difference was that the call sign was different.
So there would have been a different number available at Beattie?
Sorry?
Would Beattie have had that number?
I knew the numbers of all the candidates because I set the system up. However, I did not use any of them and I did not give the numbers to anyone in Beattie.
That was just a point for clarification as that is clearly not the number to which Mr Barr referred.
No, I did not go around giving out MSPs' numbers.
I want to clear up a couple of other points on the Federal Express contracts. At this point, Mike, can I declare an interest?
Please do.
In the transcript that has been given to us by the clerks, there is a reference to Helen Liddell, MP. I must declare that I worked for Helen Liddell previously as her personal assistant in Airdrie.
Yes. I was asked—
Can I clarify this point? You said:
No. I did not speak to either of them. Can I explain what I said? I was explaining that it was "very very useful" because Fed Ex was going to pull out. The decision was very, very useful to Scotland and also useful from a Beattie Media point of view in relation to Apco. I was interrupted and asked who the minister was. I said that the minister was Lord Macdonald and that was "very very useful". If you read on from my previous comment you will see that I did not mean that Lord Macdonald was very, very useful. I just meant that the decision was useful.
I just want to clarify that Beattie Media at no point spoke to either of the two ministers named in relation to the Fed Ex deal.
No.
Kevin, at the conclusion of the meeting, what was your feeling about how the meeting had gone?
I was not very happy because I am relatively inexperienced in the commercial sense and it was unusual for me to be in a situation where I was constantly being asked who I know and what access I could provide. I wanted immediately to write a letter to clarify what we had said and that this was not what we were about. I was unhappy with the nature of the meeting, because I felt that the questioning was aggressive. I was trying to answer the questions as honestly as I could—I was answering the questions as honestly as I could—but I still felt that we needed to write to the guy to confirm that that was not what we were about.
Mr Barr indicated in his evidence that the letter of 31 August was written on the same day as the meeting. Is that correct?
Yes.
He had consulted you on it. The following phrase is in the letter:
It was in there because we spoke about it after leaving the meeting. I was also telephoned by Alex Barr's personal assistant, who read the letter out to me.
That is in the fourth paragraph on the first page.
I asked for that to be added.
That is very helpful.
Again, I was speaking as part of the client team. I had an opposite number at Loch Lomond project. Prior to the launch, I discussed with him what issues, apart from tourism, were important, and what other messages should be given to those who need to know. I went away on my honeymoon, and when I came back he phoned me to say that he had managed to contact Jackie Baillie. I was only a consultant.
So your statement is correct in the sense that Beattie Media had briefed Jackie Media.
No, Loch Lomond project had contact. Beattie Media did not.
So "we" in this case is not Beattie Media, but the client.
Yes, it is the client.
And the client was Loch Lomond—
Loch Lomond project.
So as far as you are aware, nobody in Beattie Media had direct contact with this minister?
No.
That is fine. Thank you.
Kevin, when you had an approach from a firm that, I presume, you did not recognise, did you carry out any preliminary or investigative checks to determine whether this was a real company?
Yes, I checked with Companies House, and it had been registered for 11 years and had submitted tax returns the year before. I phoned directory inquiries and the three phone numbers on the company's headed notepaper were the three numbers that I was given. I had never heard of the company, but I checked up on it and had no reason to disbelieve what I had been told.
At what stage in the process did you or your colleagues feel that this might not be a real company, doing what it purported to do?
I did not realise that it was not a real company until it became a story in the newspaper. My misgivings related to the actions and ethics of the company. That is why I did not want to do the business. It was not because I thought that it was not a real company, but because I thought that what it was asking for was wrong.
So your response to the misgivings that you had following the meeting at the Balmoral was to send a letter clarifying the situation and what you felt you could offer—a letter that we have—and, subsequently, to turn the business down. Is that what you are telling us?
Yes.
I would like to ask a question, again for clarification, before we move on. Earlier, I asked Alex Barr what he meant when he said that "we" speak to Jack regularly. His reply was that he was not part of "we". You have just told us that when you said that "we" had briefed Jackie Baillie you were not including yourself in that. Do I have that absolutely right?
No, I am not saying that. I did not speak to Jackie Baillie and I did not have any input into arranging meetings or talking to her. However, I did sit at a meeting at which we considered what we should do and decided to put in writing what we were doing on various fronts. We left it at that. I was not involved in arranging meetings with Jackie Baillie or in meeting her, but I was present at a meeting at which we discussed what the public affairs strategy should be.
I would like to turn to page 6 of the transcript, where Alex Barr says:
It was Alex Barr's comment—I can only guess that he was saying that an element of public affairs is to point out to clients who the people are whose positions mean that they should know what the clients are doing. As I said before, if the work that you are doing has various aspects that involve different areas of Government, you should keep people informed. That is all that it is about.
So that is your understanding of a contacts programme?
Alex Barr made the comment; I told you my understanding of what he meant by it.
Okay. The statement that you made that you are not going to promise access to people is followed by a whole list of people who are your special friends. If you are not going to provide contact with people, why on earth do you start mentioning people such as Brian Fitzpatrick and Jack and Wendy and Henry and Donald?
Because—
Are you not saying, on the one hand, "I can't promise you," but on the other, "Here are all the folk I know"?
No. If you read the start of the paragraph, I said that I could not promise him access to people but I could tell him who I knew. I said that because I had been asked, " Who do you know and what can you promise?" And I answered, "I'll tell you who I know, but that does not matter because I am not promising you any access." I say that at the beginning of the passage and I repeat it at the end, after I mention who my dad is.
As you know, you also say:
Yes.
The previous paragraph is about how friendly you are with Chris Winslow and how you are personal friends and how you have worked for Jack and for Wendy, Henry and Donald on a one-to-one basis. You finish that off by saying that in the business of politics, if you have a relationship, "it makes things easier."
Yes.
So you are saying on the one hand, "We cannae promise you access," but on the other hand you then highlight all those people to a potential client and say, "Nod nod, wink wink, I actually know these folk so we're all right."
I think that I explained that a second ago. What I said was that there is nothing wrong with my working for a political party and using my understanding of the political system and the personalities in that party to give advice to my clients. That is what I am saying—that I understand the system. I am not saying, "I can get you access." If I am asked what qualifications I have to do the job properly, all I can do is give my previous work experience and my qualifications. That is all that I was doing.
Picking up on that point, your previous work experience was in the Labour party.
Yes.
What special qualifications do you think you had—
I think we have had that question.
No. What special qualifications do you think you had that caused Beattie Media to employ you?
I was in charge of media monitoring for the Labour party, and what they—
You do not have to answer the question, Mr Reid, if you do not wish to.
Okay, fine. I want to move on to one of your other comments in the transcript. You were talking about how the civil service is basically in charge, and that there are a lot of inexperienced politicians in the Scottish Parliament. You referred to them as the No 2s instead of the No 1s. Would you like to explain that remark?
I do not know whether this is relevant to the inquiry, but my comment was specific to Labour. I was saying that I felt that, at the start of the new Parliament—when a large number of the MSPs are new to a Parliament, and a large number of the members of the Executive have not been in an Executive before—it would not be unfair to say that there was inexperience. We are all inexperienced with the Scottish Parliament; we are all learning. To say that they are No 2s is merely to say that a large number of people in the Labour party at Westminster decided not to stand in Scotland.
Tricia, could you remind us in what way your line of questioning is relevant to the conduct of MSPs?
I was making the point that Mr Reid obviously has a great deal of knowledge of MSPs, and I was curious as to why he referred to them as No 2s.
Are there any other questions? No?
You wish to make an opening statement.
Yes. You did not receive my opening statement in advance because I wanted to hear what The Observer said before concluding what I wanted to say.
On a point of order, convener. I do not see the relevance of this statement to our inquiry, which is dealing with potential contacts between Beattie Media and MSPs. I do not think that we should allow a rant against The Observer from Mr Beattie.
I will allow Mr Beattie to continue. He has accepted our invitation to come here and has been given five minutes in which to make a statement. Please continue, Mr Beattie.
There have been at least two full transcripts from The Observer, but the transcript is still incomplete.
Mr Beattie, we have a lot of leeway here, but I would rather that you did not make allegations against others at the moment. We are here to examine MSPs and I would like to confine the discussion to the evidence that is in the public domain.
It is important to remember that Alex Barr and Kevin Reid repeatedly declared—verbally and in writing—that they could not promise access to ministers. In addition, Kevin told the bogus businessman that Beattie Media would not do business with his company.
I call Adam Ingram to lead the questions.
Could you detail the contacts that you or your company have had with Jack McConnell or members of his staff since the election in May?
I think Alex Barr has told you that he has not spoken to Jack McConnell. I have spoken to Jack McConnell on two occasions: the first time to congratulate him on his appointment, the second on a personal matter regarding someone who had an illness. There was one other occasion when we came into contact. We met at an Arts and Business event in Edinburgh. Jack was at one table, I was at another. I simply went up to him, patted him on the back and said, "well done."
Neither you nor any member of your staff—I believe you have 80 members of staff—has been in contact with Jack McConnell since the election?
No, I have not been. I have not spoken to Jack about any business regarding the Scottish Parliament since his election. From what I can gather from my staff—and I have spoken to many of them who might have been in a position to speak to him—they have not either.
I take it that you disagree with Alex Barr's statement at the Balmoral meeting that Jack McConnell was hired by your company
Jack McConnell was recruited because he had the skills to fulfil the role of chief executive of a company called Public Affairs Europe, which was a 50:50 joint venture between Beattie Media and a commercial law firm. Jack McConnell was never an employee of Beattie Media itself.
Could you repeat what you said about Public Affairs Europe?
It was a 50:50 joint venture between Beattie Media and a commercial law firm.
Is it still trading?
We pulled out of the venture when Mr McConnell—quite rightly—resigned when he was selected to be a Labour party candidate.
Could you give me some idea of the performance of the company in that period?
I have to admit that people have said that I have the Midas touch, but I did not have it with Public Affairs Europe. We launched the company far too early. No businesses were showing an interest in getting public affairs advice for the Scottish Parliament. It was a bad business venture. We had no clients.
No turnover?
No.
Regarding Mr McConnell's appointment, can you give details of what business opportunities you had identified which Mr McConnell could realise?
I expected that there would be a great deal of interest in the Scottish Parliament and that existing clients of Beattie Media and a commercial law firm would be interested in making use of information services relating to the Scottish Parliament. That turned out not to be the case.
How did you assess the skills and attributes that Mr McConnell was bringing to that task?
Mr McConnell came from a political background, and I judged his abilities to be essential to the role of chief executive of Public Affairs Europe. I would like to take this opportunity to say that he was not recruited because of his potential, as has been suggested. I refer the committee to the fact that we had no idea whether Mr McConnell would be selected, never mind elected. History will show that he only got in by the skin of his teeth as the candidate for Motherwell and Wishaw.
What were the attributes of Mr McConnell that attracted you? Would those attributes include his contact list?
I can tell you categorically that Jack McConnell would never abuse any contacts that he has, on behalf of Beattie Media or our clients, and I can tell you categorically that he always acted in the most highly professional manner—as one would expect.
What did you see as being the competitive advantage of hiring Jack?
Let me put it this way—if you were going into court, you would be well advised to have a lawyer representing you, because a lawyer has skills, abilities and talents that I could not provide, were you to ask me to represent you. When one starts a public affairs company, that is not done with someone who knows nothing about politics.
How was he recruited? Was an advertisement placed in the papers or was he headhunted?
He was headhunted.
Right. Who advised you to go for Jack?
I heard that Jack McConnell was about to resign as general secretary of the Labour party, and I made an approach. I do not know whether that information was correct—I do not know whether he had any intention of leaving his position as general secretary of the Labour party in Scotland. I made the approach to him and asked if he would be interested. He was interviewed by the senior partner of a commercial law firm and me.
Members should remember in their questioning that we are examining the conduct of MSPs after their election.
Absolutely—I am just coming to a relevant question.
I knew that he intended to stand, but I felt that he would make a good chief executive.
He was, however, going to be there for only a very short period.
That was a possibility. He might still have been with us had the recount gone the other way.
The point I am trying to make is, however, that it is not normal for a new business to have a chief executive in place for only a few months. What was the business plan?
The business plan was to establish a very good public affairs company. That was the aim. As I say, there was nothing guaranteed, as far as Mr McConnell was concerned. He may have had ambitions. A lot of people in the political arena have ambitions to become elected representatives. Very few of them actually succeed.
So you did not discuss with Mr McConnell, at the time of his appointment or in the interim period between his appointment and the election, any of his activities post-election, as a minister?
I must interject here, Adam. We must move away from the recruitment policy of Beattie Media—certainly as it applied before May.
What I am asking is whether Mr Beattie had some sort of understanding with Mr McConnell.
There was no understanding with Mr McConnell—
Post-election?
There was no understanding post-election, pre-election, or whatever. Mr McConnell was recruited by Public Affairs Europe because of his abilities. There was no understanding.
I ask again, because I believe it to be a relevant question, how you went about recruiting Kevin Reid and Christina Marshall.
Who do you want me to deal with first?
Whichever one you want to deal with.
Okay. I will deal with Kevin Reid first, if I may. Kevin's father, John, has been a—
I remind you, Mr Beattie, that you do not have to answer this line of questioning. I have made it clear that we are concentrating on MSPs' behaviour. However, if you wish to continue, please do.
Kevin Reid was recruited because of his abilities; because he had a political background, like Jack McConnell. Sure, he was not nearly as experienced as Jack—that point has been made and I have noted it. People are saying, "Why did you recruit Kevin Reid?" I will tell you why I recruited Kevin Reid. I was extremely impressed by Kevin when he came along for an interview. I gave him the hardest interview that I have ever given anyone, because I was not going to recruit him just because his father was the Minister for Transport. It is important to point out that his father was the Minister for Transport when I recruited Kevin—he was not the Secretary of State for Scotland and, as Minister for Transport, he did not even have a Scottish brief.
Do you have any more questions?
Yes, I have quite a few more. The question that I am driving at is this: do you have any other members of staff who are relatives either of politicians—Labour party or other party politicians—or of anyone else who is otherwise connected to the various political parties or politicians in Scotland?
Not that I know of. I have to say that I do not ask people whom I recruit who their daddy is. That is not part of our recruitment policy. However, I can tell you that, in the past, I have employed, for instance, Terry Houston. Terry Houston went on to edit the SNP's newspaper, but I at no time knew what Terry Houston's background was—politically, I mean. The issue was never raised.
Let us move on to look at this whole transcript. One implication of it might be that what your two employees were trying to put across was that Beattie Media had a unique selling point for any clients, which was based on two factors. One factor was a widespread and wide-ranging network of contacts within organisations such as Scottish Enterprise and local enterprise companies, mainly in the central belt of Scotland, so that your company was well placed to have early intelligence on major business development and construction projects that were coming up. The uniqueness of the combination was that your company also had ready access to Labour politicians who were in positions of power and influence in local authorities, the Scottish Executive and, indeed, the Scotland Office.
Of course we do not.
You do not have a database, for example, which contains that type of information?
No, we do not. I am proud to say that Beattie Media has a number of local enterprise companies as clients. We have a number of other public sector clients, including health boards and other organisations.
This is a follow-up from questions that I have asked your employees. On the ministers and the events named in the transcript, for example, Sam Galbraith and the SPL, to your knowledge, did Beattie Media directly contact any minister to gain access to them in relation to those events?
I have a copy of the letter that went to Sam Galbraith from Roger Mitchell in my file. We did not contact him. We did not contact Henry McLeish. We did not contact Jackie Baillie and we did not contact Lord Macdonald.
Helen Liddell?
Or Helen Liddell. I can say that categorically: we did not.
I have only one question. Obviously, we are chiefly concerned with standards for MSPs at this stage. Did you receive advance information about any forthcoming statements to be made by the Scottish Administration?
No. I must say that I was concerned when I heard, on the Saturday evening, the allegations made by The Observer that we had. I was extremely relieved to discover that the top-secret information that Kevin had passed on was in fact gleaned from the BBC.
I will return to Jack McConnell and his appointment to Public Affairs Europe. You said that he was the best man for the job. You personally interviewed him and you were so pleased with his appointment that you put out a press release welcoming that appointment.
Yes, we organised a photo call to launch the company.
Are you still proud of what Jack achieved at Public Affairs Europe?
In a business sense, it was not the success that I had anticipated, but I must defend Jack McConnell, because he always acted professionally and he always acted in the best interests of Beattie Media or Public Affairs Europe, but he never compromised himself.
Tricia, can I ensure that your question will relate to the conduct of MSPs?
I have questions relating to MSPs and Mr McConnell.
I do not know anything about that; I am sorry.
Are there any other questions?
I would like to turn to the events after the meeting, to the letter that was sent on 31 August to Anthony James and signed by Alex Barr. Were you consulted about that, or did Mr Barr and Mr Reid deal with it?
I believe that a copy of the letter was put on my desk for my information.
So at that stage you were not aware of any particular concerns that were being expressed quite strongly in the letter?
I read the letter, and from it I assumed that we had a client who was pressing us to do things that we were uneasy about, and what Alex Barr was doing was drawing a line in the sand and stating very clearly what Beattie Media's public affairs arm was prepared to do.
Further to that, were you party to the decision to withdraw, which I think we have now clearly established from all the parties this morning was made on 16 September?
Yes, I was. I was party to that decision because I started to get very uneasy when we were getting letters from Commercial and Legal Services saying:
At the point that you decided to withdraw because you felt that the relationship, or the potential relationship, with this businessman who was subsequently discovered to be mythical was not one that you wanted to follow, did you have any suspicions that you were the subject of a sting?
No. May I tell you what really happened?
Please do.
Two weeks ago today, I was at Glasgow airport to catch a flight for a three-week holiday in Florida. I arrived in Florida only to get a phone call to say, "You have to come back right away." Had I, at all, been suspicious that we had been stung by a newspaper, I would not have gone to Florida.
Finally, you said—and I want to be quite clear about this—that to your knowledge neither your firm nor anyone in it had had any direct contact with ministers to get things into their diary, to brief them or to arrange meetings.
With regard to Jack McConnell, Alex has already told you about his approach. There are times when we approach MSPs, MPs and ministers on behalf of clients for MSPs, ministers and MPs to participate in photo calls. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that because it is up to the minister, the MP or the MSP whether he or she accepts those invitations.
You said just a minute ago—correct me if I am wrong—that you have contact with MSPs, ministers and the like. Who in your organisation is responsible for the contacts with MSPs and ministers?
It varies. For instance, one of our teams was recently doing a nurse of the year award. It was that team which approached an MSP—I cannot recall her name, but she had a nursing background—to come and present the award, which she was happy to do. That approach was made by that particular team. Beattie Media has probably about 20 teams in total. Approaches can be made by any of those teams.
How do you feel about your own employees, who are suggesting that you actually did have that kind of influence? You have talked about the standards of Beattie Media. You have talked about your professionalism, expertise and how you attract "the best people". How do you personally feel today, having heard that—
Tricia, can I stop you on that question? I would like to move on from that point.
Can I just ask—[Interruption.]
My solicitor would like to raise a point.
On procedures?
Yes. I have already asked the clerk: I ask The Observer not to snigger or make comments while my witness is giving evidence. That has happened repeatedly.
I have not heard that, but I ask everybody in the public gallery to remain silent while all the evidence is being given.
I would like to ask Mr Beattie about the routine procedures that operate within the company when a client approaches it.
Normally, I personally try to get involved when there is a business pitch. The problem with the day in question—with The Observer's sting—was that I had three bookings in my diary. I could not fulfil them all, and I went to another one.
If there are any more questions, I must insist that they are related to MSPs' behaviour.
I will make one quick point: it came up at the tail-end of your contribution.
My understanding of what Alex was saying was that we had been invited to go along to a public affairs pitch. However, Alex was going along to sell the PR service as well, because he believed it would be in a potential client's interests to have publicity to back up what the public affairs team was doing.
But Alex was actually taking the lead in this, if you look at the—
As I said to Des McNulty, I think, in hindsight, that it was a mistake for me not to have been there.
Okay, but the point I wanted to make before I picked up that last one was that I had not got an answer about Christina Marshall. She is relevant because she works for Mr McConnell and she worked for Beattie Media. Is that right?
She was recruited by me as an assistant to my PA. She came on board and she was absolutely excellent, so much so that my events team pinched her from me. I have a very good events team—we do well over 100 events a year—and they asked if they could have her because her administrative skills were superb. She joined the events team and I have to say that I was terribly disappointed to lose her to Jack McConnell.
The relevance, Adam, is the point after she left that employment.
Was she Jack McConnell's secretary during her time at Beattie Media?
I believe she was with us for just over a year and she may have done the odd letter for him, but nothing more than that. She worked as an assistant to my PA. I can keep two people going full time.
I can believe it.
Can you clarify one thing? It is suggested in the transcript that you were happy for Christina Marshall to be almost "placed" with Jack McConnell, subsequent to—
That is not how it happened.
Thank you. The introduction to the evidence that was laid before us this morning by The Observer states that
Kevin Reid. I was also approached by an individual who was at one time an SNP defence spokesman.
You were approached by—
By a former SNP defence spokesman.
Not a current MSP?
Not a current MSP.
Have you had any contact, or have you made any contact, with any current MSP with an offer to employ them using their contacts on behalf of lobbyists and clients?
No. That would not be proper.
So the answer is no, or none?
No.
On the appointment of Christina Marshall, Mr Beattie, I want to clarify that you do not agree with the assertion—made by your member of staff—that you were happy to let her go and that she was, basically, placed with Jack McConnell?
I was disappointed to lose Christina, because she was doing a great job for us. I am happy to testify to that this morning.
So you do not agree with the statements made by your employees?
No. I do not.
Are there any more questions?
On the second page of the letter from Beattie Media of 31 August, it says:
Well, yes, but we do not have a public affairs division any more; we have closed it completely.
That closes the evidence session. Thank you very much, Mr Beattie, for coming along today. We appreciate it.
I would quite like to ask Mr Dean Nelson to come back and speak to us on the specific issue of the letter of 31 August, which the company received from Beattie Media.
What is the view of the rest of the committee?
Would it be helpful—
Please give me a steer. Do you want me to do that or not?
What would the purpose be?
I want to know what further information Dean Nelson expected to obtain, or how he intended to amplify his story, in view of the fact that he had received this letter stating quite clearly the position of Beattie Media.
The committee took a decision to proceed based on the video and transcript—Richard was not involved at that stage. I am concerned about where we are going with this.
Are there any other comments?
It may be that The Observer people will wish to comment on the information that they have heard from the other witnesses, and will be prepared to do so in writing.
At the beginning of the meeting we agreed to conduct this inquiry in a particular order, and I do not wish to change what has been agreed.
Having just joined the committee, I was not party to your initial discussions.
Anybody who wishes to make a comment in writing to the committee, on anything that has arisen in this meeting, should please do so.
I wish to make a point before we do that. When I prepared my line of questioning for Mr Beattie, it became obvious that I had a narrow remit. The transcript raises issues of public concern regarding, in particular, public agencies, Scottish Enterprise and local enterprise companies. It would be in order for this committee to refer investigation of that part of the evidence to the appropriate committee, which, I believe, is the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee. I hope that this committee will recommend that the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee investigate those matters.
We can recommend that in our report at the end of this investigation, if that is what the committee decides.
Meeting suspended.
On resuming—