We have used the lunch break to consult our advisers informally, and we now move straight to item 2 on the agenda.
Before we move on, a number of us have been approached by members of the media about the information and statements that were given to us by The Observer and by Beattie Media. They have asked that those documents be released. Given that the documents are in the public domain, I can see no reason why we cannot make them available to the press as of now.
If the rest of the committee is agreed, that is exactly what we will do. Thank you for that suggestion, Tricia. We will now move on to item 2.
I suggest that we take each of the MSPs concerned and decide what information we want from them. If we start with Jack McConnell, I suggest that we would want to see Jack's ministerial diary and any constituency diaries that are kept on his behalf by any of his staff, based either in the Parliament or in his constituency office in Wishaw. As the transcript alludes to the possible influence that individuals have on ministers taking up engagements, I would also be interested in seeing invitations that the minister accepted and the appropriate associated paperwork—if that is available to us within the confines of commercial confidentiality.
Is everyone happy with that?
May I clarify that that will go back to the point at which Jack McConnell was appointed as a minister?
Correct.
I suggest, Mike, that it should be from his election to this Parliament.
That is what I was trying to clarify.
Sorry, yes. We are interested in the conduct of MSPs from the very date of the election.
From 6 May.
Are there any other points on Jack McConnell? What about his notebook?
Ah, the notebook—the notebook that is alluded to in the correspondence that we have received, rather than in the transcript. In the transcript, the reference is quite clearly to a diary entry, but in the correspondence that we have received today, Jack, in a conversation with Dean Nelson, refers to a notebook entry. Perhaps the notebook would also be of interest to the committee.
I want to follow up Karen's point on asking about Jack's attendance at various events to which he was invited. As a cross-check, we will require a list of Beattie Media clients.
I will ask the clerk to request that from Beattie Media.
Karen referred specifically to Jack's ministerial and constituency diaries. If he has a private diary, can we request that he makes that, too, available to the committee?
I assume that we can ask him to, but I do not think that any individual is under an obligation to give us their private diaries.
I said that we could ask.
I have to say that Jack has written to us to assure us of his absolute co-operation with anything that we want to do. That is appreciated.
It would be both inappropriate and not competent for the committee to request the diaries of Mr Sam Galbraith in relation to events that occurred before the creation of the Scots Parliament. We have to be seen to be acting correctly, and we do not have the jurisdiction or the authority to make such a request.
Is that accepted?
The other two ministers who were mentioned were Henry McLeish and Jackie Baillie. I suggest that we obtain a note from them on the Loch Lomond project, any green folder associated with that, any briefings that they might have received from any person connected with the project, and any contact or materials that they received from Beattie Media in relation to it.
Is that accepted?
Kenny MacAskill was mentioned; it would be a good idea for the committee clerk to write to him to ask whether he did indeed receive a phone call from Kevin Reid, as was mentioned in the transcript.
For the avoidance of any doubt, we should buttress the fact that we do not have jurisdiction over Sam Galbraith's activities before he became a minister, by saying that there is no evidence to indicate that anything inappropriate occurred. This is not simply a question of not overstepping an administrative boundary.
I strongly agree with what Des McNulty has just said. I do not think that we should go down that avenue, both because it is not competent and because no suggestions of impropriety have been made.
Lord Macdonald was also mentioned in the transcript. Does anyone want to comment on that?
I do not think that it is competent for us to invite Lord Macdonald to appear before the committee. Is it?
It is the same situation as with Sam Galbraith.
Our responsibility is to deal with MSPs.
I felt that we should record that.
Des McNulty has expressed his view about Sam Galbraith. In the same way, we should put on record our view that the interviews that we have conducted today revealed no allegations or evidence of impropriety on the part of Lord Macdonald and Helen Liddell.
Is that the view of the entire committee?
Yes.
Is everyone now happy that the documents that we will request the clerks to make available are sufficient?
We should be clear that this might be only a starting point. Further on in our inquiry, we might request more papers, but what we have already asked for will give us enough to work on for the moment.
Indeed. We will receive a report from the clerk on the material that we have just requested. I suggest that we meet again on Monday 25 October at 2 pm. That will give the clerking team, with its advisers, sufficient time to examine all the material.
I agree with that suggestion. We should add that our hope and expectation is that we will keep to the original timetable that we set of completing the process by the first week in November.
Everybody is agreed that we need a swift, thorough, comprehensive—
And public—
Indeed—a swift, thorough, comprehensive and public examination of all these issues. We have shown that that is what we intend.
Meeting closed at 13:55.
Previous
Evidence