Standards Committee, 09 Mar 2004

Meeting date: Tuesday, March 9, 2004

Official Report 249KB pdf

---

Complaints

Agenda item 6 is complaints against MSPs.

We have not covered item 5.

Sorry. We are on item 5, which is also on complaints against MSPs.

The paper that is before us deals with administrative procedures for handling correspondence during the complaints process. It considers how we might clarify the procedures for handling correspondence and communications from parties who are involved in complaints that are under active consideration or investigation by the standards commissioner, or by the committee. The paper suggests—in order to deal with that—some principles that are aimed at striking a balance between accessibility and transparency, which are encouraged under the Parliament's founding principles, and the duty to maintain the integrity of the complaints process.

As far as I can see, the complaints process is a quasi-judicial procedure that requires a degree of privacy in the early preliminary stages to ensure that any investigation is carried out properly. It is also improper for parties to a complaint to approach committee members outwith the procedures that are laid down in the Scottish Parliamentary Standards Commissioner Act 2002 and the code of conduct, with the intention of influencing the committee's handling of a case. Such conduct is particularly unacceptable if it occurs while the commissioner is investigating the complaint at stage 1 or stage 2, because it would undermine his independence.

Do members have any suggestions about the report that is before them?

Although it is quite right that agenda items 5 and 6 are separate, we need to remember that they relate to each other. We have just approved an information strategy, the purpose of which is to ensure that the public have confidence in the system. In my view, lobbying of the commissioner or of the committee at any stage should not only be discouraged but should be unacceptable in what is a semi-judicial process.

However, it has become clear to me during the year that I have served on the committee that there are concerns—both from people who make complaints and from MSPs who are being complained against—about some aspects of the procedures. There has certainly been unhappiness, which might or might not be justifiable, about some aspects. We have to get the balance right between ensuring that the process is open, transparent, accountable and adheres to all the other principles that the Parliament is founded on, and ensuring that we retain the confidence of MSPs and, more important, of the general public, that the system is all those things. To that end, I suggest a number of amendments to the draft principles that have been proposed by the commissioner in paragraph 6 of the paper that is before us.

The principles were not proposed by the commissioner; they were drafted by the clerk.

Okay. As we know from experience, we have been lobbied about complaints—I will not mention any case in public—

I am grateful to you for that and I counsel members to follow your example.

Absolutely. We have all been lobbied about what the commissioner is or is not doing in a particular case. As the principle that is detailed in the first bullet point in paragraph 6 of the paper states, any complaints at stages 1 or 2 should be made to the commissioner. When the commissioner produces his report for us, it should have attached to it the complaints that he has received about how he has proceeded—so that we can get an overall picture—as well as his response to those complaints. The complaints might be from the complainant or the person who has been complained about; we have to be satisfied that both parties have been treated fairly and equally and that a complaint has been dealt with fairly before we reach a final decision on whether to accept the recommendations.

In relation to bullet point 1, I suggest that any inquiry or complaint concerning the complaints procedure should be addressed in writing to the commissioner, rather than be lodged by telephone or any other means. If someone complains about the commissioner, that should be on the record in writing. Any such complaints and the commissioner's response should be attached to the commissioner's report to the committee. That is my first suggestion.

I am happy to hear all your suggestions. Other members might want to ask questions about what is before us today and I am happy for us to debate each of your suggestions, but I do not want to get down to an immediate debate on individual issues. Do you suggest that all written material that is made available to the commissioner be attached as an annex or otherwise to his report?

If either party has complained to the commissioner about a procedural matter, we should have that complaint and the commissioner's response to it before us when we receive the report. We should not be involved while the commissioner undertakes his investigation—we should not be involved until the commissioner has prepared his report. However, that report should contain all material so that we are aware of any concerns that might be outstanding. We will not know about such concerns unless we know the nature of a complaint and the commissioner's response to it. That is part of the transparency and accountability that must be built into the system, if we are to build up confidence in it.

Are you suggesting that, parallel to what happens at stages 3 and 4, any such complaints would come to the clerks?

Absolutely. The committee should be aware of all such matters and the commissioner's responses to them.

Do members want to deal with each of Mr Neil's suggestions as they come up or shall we just deal with them all together? I am in the committee's hands.

I have a separate but related point. I think that if either party is still aggrieved, there should be a method that allows them to make known their views at a later stage. However, that is a separate issue.

I endorse whole-heartedly the "in writing" element of Alex Neil's suggestion. I agree with the thrust of what he is saying, but I am slightly concerned about multiple grievances. I am sure that we can all think of constituents who have a grievance about which they have made a complaint. When such people do not get satisfaction, they complain about the way in which their grievance was handled. They might go on to engage a lawyer, but not like the way in which the lawyer handles the grievance, which causes them to make a complaint against the lawyer. I can think of several examples of people who have had an initial grievance and who have gone on to have a series of three, four or five on-going grievances, which were subject to the relevant dispute resolution, grievance or complaints procedures. All those grievances could involve fundamental arguments and reasoning.

I am not entirely sure that we want further to immerse our already rather complicated and slightly cumbersome procedure in more formal rules. I appreciate that the suggestion that Alex Neil is making is designed to be fair to both sides, but I think that what is being suggested should take the form of guidance. If a person is not happy with the way in which the commissioner is carrying out his investigation into a complaint, we should suggest to the commissioner that he make that clear to the committee when he reports to us. I also think that the commissioner should make it clear to complainants that they have the opportunity to pursue their complaints afterwards with the committee; in other words, that there is a procedure that they can follow to pursue a complaint about the commissioner.

I am concerned about the fact that, before an investigation had even finished, the committee would be being asked to consider the complaint and investigation of it and a complaint about the way in which the original complaint was handled. We would end up in a very complicated situation.

We must always balance all the principles that are involved. Alex Neil was right to refer to openness, accessibility and transparency—three of the Parliament's founding principles—but I do not think that any of those overrules justice.

I am trying to achieve justice.

The reasons why the proposals have been produced are that the interests of justice are not always being served by current practices and the independence and integrity of the standards commissioner are being undermined. We should remember that Parliament set up the standards commissioner to be independent. I do not think that we can give greater weight to openness, transparency and accessibility than we give to justice and to the integrity and independence of the standards commissioner. There is some danger that, in practice, we might be heading in that direction.

I have considerable sympathy with Kenneth Macintosh's view. The more we detail procedures, the more opportunities there might be for people who, for whatever reason, will never accept the validity of judgments that are made by someone else on their complaints. We will be providing more and more opportunities formally to challenge the system. We need to be careful not to do that because, by building such opportunities into the system, we might make it almost unworkable.

I do not see how we can have justice if we sit here in ignorance not knowing whether there has been dissatisfaction with the procedure. I imagine that such situation would be the exception rather than the rule—I certainly hope so—but the committee should know the nature of any complaint and the commissioner's response. I am not saying that we need every piece of documentation: I am saying that the basics need to be there, including the original complaint in writing and the response to it. We can decide whether that information is relevant to our reaching a conclusion, but we should at least be aware of it if we are to sit in judgment and agree or disagree with the standards commissioner's recommendations.

If we are going to build up public trust in the system—in the Parliament and outside the Parliament—that basic information should be available. Donald Gorrie may want to take it a stage further and consider whether there is a need for an additional procedure for someone who is still dissatisfied when the commissioner reports. We will hear about that, but that is not what I am talking about. All I am saying is that the committee—at the end of the day we are accountable to Parliament—should be aware of any concerns or formal complaints about the procedure and the response to them.

Shall we dispose of the principle at this stage, or shall we move on?

If Alex Neil means that the information is to be attached as an annex purely for information, I am not too concerned because—correct me if I am wrong—by following that procedure the commissioner would be making us aware of any complaints about the procedure. We would be aware of the annex and we could look at it, and if it was obvious that the complaint was vexatious in the extreme we could simply discount it. That would build in another safeguard for committee members, in that we could not be accused of not having before us all the relevant, partly relevant or totally irrelevant material at which the commissioner had been looking. If that is what Alex Neil means, I am not too concerned about it. It would be reasonably helpful.

How do other members feel about the suggestion that when a complaint about a procedural matter has been lodged with the commissioner at stages 1 or 2 or with the clerk at stages 3 or 4, that complaint should appear in an annex to the report, along with the response from the appropriate person? Is that agreed?

I do not agree. I do not want to push the matter to a vote, but we have set up an independent commissioner whom we must trust to carry out investigations thoroughly. If there is a complaint about the way in which that has been done, there should be a mechanism to address that; there is—there can be a judicial review or the complainant can come back to the committee and the clerks. That is the process: we should not undermine it. When a complaint goes to the commissioner, he or she should investigate it thoroughly and report on it. Afterwards, we can examine the totality of whether the person has accepted the report and, if not, the reasons for their not accepting it. However, to undermine the process during the report—

No—to be fair, that would not happen during the report. It would happen when the commissioner made his report to the committee, or when the clerks did it. It would not be during the process; it would be at the conclusion of the process. Am I right?

Yes.

All I am saying is that the suggestion does not take us any further forward. The principle that during stages 1 and 2 of the complaints procedure all on-going correspondence or concerns be directed straight to the commissioner is sound. The commissioner deals with such situations and he should handle all correspondence. Not only do I trust the commissioner, I trust the institution that was set up, which is an independent investigative complaints procedure. The commissioner should investigate the complaint and report back to us.

I do not mind receiving guidance. For example, in such cases, it would be sensible for the commissioner to include in his report a note saying, "By the way, I think you should know that the complainant has been unhappy throughout my investigation of his complaint." However, although I do not mind the commissioner flagging that up, it should not be—

Mandatory.

Yes. I do not think that it should be written into procedures that he must report such on-going concerns. All that there should be is an avenue for the complainant to make known his or her concerns after the commissioner has reported back. Otherwise, we would be undermining the system.

Before I take Mr Fergusson, I wonder whether our clerks or legal advisers wish to give us guidance on this point.

No? Okay, then.

I will take Alex Fergusson.

I find myself to be quite open-minded on the issue. That said, there are some things that I do not quite understand. First, the third bullet point in paragraph 6 says:

"Any additional material relating to a complaint at Stage 3 should be addressed to the Committee Clerks who will make this material available to the Committee".

I presume that that complaint could also be about the complaints procedure. If that is the case at stage 3, I cannot quite see why it should not also be the case at stages 1 and 2 and why such material could not be included as an attachment to the report.

I acknowledge Kenny Macintosh's point about receiving guidance on the matter. However, if we received a report in which the commissioner informed the committee that he had received complaints about the procedure, I would immediately want to know about the grounds of such complaints. I presume that we would then ask the commissioner about that, and he would have to go into all the details. Would attaching material about the nature of the complaint to the report not simplify that whole process? I cannot quite see the harm in such an approach.

Ken Macintosh is clearly concerned that, having set up a commissioner who is independent, we are obliging him to tell us about the nature of any complaints that might be made against him. Is that the kind of message that we want to send out?

I am certain that that is not the intention behind Alex Neil's proposal. However, with vexatious complaints or in situations of the kind that Kenneth Macintosh described—in which an initial complaint is followed by a series of complaints about procedural matters—the more detail we include in the procedure, the more opportunities there are to challenge it. On the other hand, such an approach might protect the commissioner. If any complaints had been made against his procedural actions, he would have that opportunity to detail those complaints and his response to them and to be seen to be adhering to existing law and procedures. However, as I said, I share Kenneth Macintosh's worry that the more detail we include in the procedure the more opportunities there will be for detailed challenges to it.

Instead of considering complaints against members, we will end up considering complaints against the commissioner and the complaints procedure itself. Every single time that the commissioner returns a judgment that does not find for the complainant—or every time it looks as if the commissioner will not agree with the complainant—the complainant will have the opportunity to complain about the procedure itself. As a result, we will end up asking questions about our procedure.

Instead, we should simply say, "This is our procedure. We think it's fair and robust and we will defend it." If the complainant wants to take matters further at the end of the process, there should be a procedure that allows them to do so. However, we should not overcomplicate matters that are already quite complicated—we should trust the commissioner to deal fairly with matters and we should not build into the procedure a means with which to question it. Such an approach would simply undermine the commissioner and the system and would result in our having to deal with separate disputes, although we have a difficult enough job in dealing with the initial complaints against MSPs.

I fundamentally and absolutely disagree. We should know all the facts when we receive the commissioner's report. If we do not provide a facility for people to make such complaints if they want to—which, I imagine, will be the exception rather than the rule—people will have no confidence whatever in the procedure. I must say that, from my experience as a member of this committee, I am not convinced that our procedures are in any way right at the moment. From what I have seen, we have a long way to go before our procedures are right and fair—they are definitely not right and fair at the moment.

We would be failing in our duty as MSPs if we were not to take into consideration the concerns of complainants, or of members who are the subject of complaints, about whether procedure has been followed. We have just heard that our role is semi-judicial: clearly, if there was a problem about procedure in a court of law, the matter would be reported and dealt with before any final judgment was reached.

It is only fair, both to the public and to MSPs—to complainants and to those who are the subject of the complaint—that a complainant's concerns be at least registered in an appendix to a report. We might not be in a position to judge the matter one way or the other: we might agree with the concerns or disagree with them. However, if a pattern of complaints emerges, the publication of such concerns may be one way of finding out that there are flaws in our procedures that need to be addressed.

There has to be a quid pro quo, especially if we are to deny people the right to lobby the committee—as is quite right, in my view. We need to strike a balance—the balance is not right at the moment and is potentially unfair. In some cases, it might be unfair to the complainant; in other cases, it might be unfair to the member who is being complained about.

I do not see what harm would be done by attaching as an appendix to a report any complaints about the procedure that arose during the course of an investigation. As Alex Fergusson pointed out, a bullet point in the paper suggests that we should agree to that for stage 3, so why cannot we allow for that at stages 1 and 2?

The logical conclusion to your proposal is that all material that appears before the standards commissioner should come before the committee. In that case, the commissioner's judgments would certainly be affected. For example, the fact that the commissioner's published report did not include a particular aspect might be a ground for complaint about the procedure. If, having received a series of submissions from the complainer and the person who was the subject of the complaint, the commissioner chose not to include all the material in his final report, a procedural complaint might be lodged to the effect that the commissioner had not included all the material. We have to allow the commissioner to make such judgment.

I am not asking for all the material to be published—

But that is the logical conclusion of your argument.

No, it is not. I ask that a copy of the complaint about the procedure, together with a summary of the commissioner's response to the complaint, be included in the appendix. I do not want letters to and fro to be included or anything like that. I just want a summary of the situation.

If the complaint is that the commissioner has not included material—

The complainant would not know that.

Consider the circumstances that might arise for the complaint that is the next item on our agenda. If the published report does not include the material that we have before us, a complaint could be lodged with the commissioner. Would the commissioner then have to publish his justification for not publishing all the material that was made available to him?

No. My proposal is clear. If a complaint about the commissioner's procedures is lodged—as we are asking people to do—during the commissioner's investigation, that complaint and the commissioner's response to it should be made to known to us when the commissioner reports to the committee. By that time, the commissioner will have reached his conclusions and documented his findings in the completed report, which will contain all the relevant evidence. All that I am saying is that an appendix to the report should make us aware of any complaint about the procedure and of the commissioner's response to that complaint. I do not want copies of all the correspondence between the complainant and the commissioner.

In an attempt to break the logjam, I propose that, if it is acceptable to the committee, we take some time to reflect on the matter, not only so that committee members can reflect on Alex Neil's proposed amendment—or, I guess, amendments—but so that the commissioner can also have an opportunity to reflect and, if possible, comment on them. That would prevent us from rushing into making a judgment, which is the last thing that we want to do about such an important matter.

I second that proposal, which offers an eminently sensible approach.

Bill Butler's suggestion is eminently sensible in relation to the whole report. We want to tease out all the issues, and we have been back and forth on this particular one. Mr Neil, will you clarify whether, if your suggestion were to be accepted, you envisage that the annex would be a published document or a private paper, perhaps for the committee?

The annex would have the same status as the rest of the report, so it would be published only when the report was published.

We move on to your next suggestion.

Perhaps Donald Gorrie wants to comment.

No. Bill Butler's sensible proposal short-circuited what I was going to suggest.

I think that my other suggestions will be less controversial. First, we might need to redraft the fourth bullet point of paragraph 6 in the light of the decision that we reach today on agenda item 6.

Yes. The matter in that bullet point absolutely depends on our decision on item 6. Of course, whatever decision we reach on item 6 will be incorporated in our report.

The fifth bullet point at paragraph 6 says that the committee would provide guidance on the

"timing for making written submissions to the Committee."

Surely that should read, "written and oral submissions"?

Oral submissions can be made only at a meeting of the committee. Would we need to put that in?

That is my point. In full, the fifth bullet point says:

"Should the Committee decide to conduct its own investigation at Stage 3, the Committee will provide guidance to the parties to the complaint on the format and timing for making written submissions to the Committee."

We dealt with a case recently in which oral evidence was submitted after the committee reopened the case after receiving the commissioner's report. Surely we should give guidance on that.

I do not have any particular difficulty with that.

The sixth bullet point says:

"Any contact aimed at influencing members of the Standards Committee either individually or collectively or ‘lobbying' by any party to a complaint which is under investigation by the Commissioner or consideration by the Committee will be viewed as unacceptable."

I suggest that we add "and reported accordingly" to the end of that point. It is about getting the balance right; clearly, the fact that someone is lobbying the committee should be made known at some point.

I am quite happy to accept that suggestion, if other members are, too. However, I am concerned that, although it is clear what sanctions are available to the committee against members of the Scottish Parliament, there appear to be no sanctions against any member of the public at present. We have touched on the matter informally in the past, but perhaps we could look at it again. If we are continually lobbied at every stage, an ultimate sanction might be to dismiss the complaint because the procedure could become so contaminated that there would be no possibility of justice. Perhaps that would be taking things too far. However to achieve the balance that you are talking about—

I am trying to build in balance both ways.

Any complaint ought to be investigated properly. If it becomes impossible to do that because the process becomes so contaminated that we cannot deliver justice, the committee might choose, in extreme circumstances, to dismiss the complaint because it cannot deal with it. How do members feel about that?

I tend to agree. The word "unacceptable" is perfectly good in context, but if something is unacceptable without an ultimate sanction, it is in fact acceptable.

The only sanction that we can have is to dismiss the complaint.

In an extreme situation.

My slight concern is that we keep talking about a semi-judicial process. It is true to say that we should be rigorous and fair in the process, but it is not a judicial process. I am concerned about the process becoming even more legalised, if I may use that term, and more complicated and bureaucratic. It is already becoming cumbersome, which is not in anybody's interests because it then becomes difficult to have confidence in a process that one finds difficult to understand.

In this particular case, what Alex Neil suggests is addressed in the next bullet point—that a member could be the subject of another complaint as a result of attempting to influence the committee. Rather than view such behaviour as being "unacceptable", I suggest that we discourage it. We should try to discourage MSPs who are complained about and people who make complaints from lobbying the committee. We do not want to escalate matters, but introducing a further layer of sanctions would imply that if someone had the audacity to send an e-mail to members of the committee during the complaint process, we would escalate matters again. We should instead be getting at the heart of the matter—when somebody makes a complaint, we should deal with it as quickly and fairly as possible. There is no point in building a complicated system in which one could make a complaint about somebody who lobbies the committee, saying that they had undue access. We should discourage everybody from trying to influence or lobby the committee. We should not build in more sanctions; there will always be sanctions against members' behaviour and we do not have sanctions against members of the public anyway. We should be careful about going beyond what is our desired objective and entrapping ourselves in a web of complicated procedures that do no justice to anybody and which do not serve the interests of fairness in the long term.

I see what Kenneth Macintosh is driving at, but I think that the word "discourage" is not strong enough. Such behaviour is unacceptable, so "unacceptable" is fine, and "reported accordingly" is fine as well because we are giving people information. We all accept Kenneth Macintosh's point that there are no sanctions against members of the public, but the committee has to know when the situation reaches the point at which, in extreme circumstances, the only sanctions that we can take would be extreme.

I agree with Bill Butler's comments. This is a fundamental point, especially as there are sanctions that apply to members for lobbying the committee but none that apply to members of the public. If we say simply that we discourage people from lobbying, some will say that although the committee does not want them to lobby, there is nothing to stop them from doing so. Our sending the signal that we consider any lobbying of the committee to be "unacceptable" and that it will be "reported accordingly" might suggest to people that they should exercise caution and judgment before embarking on a course of action. In some cases it may be necessary for us to send that signal. To "discourage" something sends out a very different signal from our saying that we consider a particular behaviour or action to be "unacceptable".

I do not disagree at all with those comments. Is there not a perfect logic to continuing that train of thought and saying that, in extremis, in the face of continued, prolonged lobbying, the complaint could be dismissed at the end of the process?

I have considerable personal sympathy with that view. It may be difficult for us to proceed as Alex Fergusson suggests, but if the process becomes so contaminated by continued lobbying, it will be very difficult for the committee to reach a judgment on an issue without having its views clouded by the lobbying that is taking place.

That is why I used the expression "in extremis". There would be an element of sanction—one that I hope would never be used. It would always be at the disposal of either the committee or the commissioner to say to the complainant that they should be very aware that continued lobbying might lead to their complaint being dismissed.

I seek advice on this matter from our advisers. Is it reasonable in terms of natural justice to dismiss a complaint because the procedure has become so contaminated by lobbying that it would be difficult to deliver justice?

I have misgivings about the suggestion and would like to look into it and think about it more. Simply dismissing a complaint and offering no alternative to the complainer might be a problem.

We have already agreed that we will reflect on matters. Perhaps this is one of the matters on which the advisers and members can reflect.

If the complainer knows that all his or her e-mails to members of the committee go straight into the bucket, in due course he or she may get the message. If the person has a genuine complaint about procedure, it must be pursued—we said that we would reflect on that matter. The strongest wording that we could use would be to say that lobbying "will be viewed as unacceptable and reported accordingly". Adding threats of scrubbing the whole basis of the complaint would not be very clever, but we must make clear very strongly that lobbying is unacceptable. The clerk could point out politely that if people keep lobbying, they do not do their chances any good.

We need to remember that the fact that someone behaves in a manner to which we as members of the committee take exception or that we think does their case little good does not mean that they do not have a genuine complaint to make. I would have serious reservations if we were to disregard a complaint because somebody had failed to conduct themselves with due probity, because they might have a genuine complaint.

In our daily work, we all deal with members of the public. People are not always reasonable, but sometimes the system has made them behave like that. That does not excuse them but it can be an explanation for why they behave the way they do. We have to send out a signal about how members of the public, and MSPs, should conduct themselves, but we have to bear it in mind that people have the right to make a complaint.

The key point to consider is the sixth bullet point in paragraph 6—the one that begins with the words, "Any contact". I suggest that we should agree to it as written, with the addition that Mr Neil suggested. At a future meeting, we can consider the other points that we said we would reflect on. I would like to finish this agenda item now, because we have given it a fair thrashing. When we come to consider things further, we will be able to consider how we might include the principles in section 10 of the code of conduct.

In the meantime, we should advise the commissioner of our views, working on the basis of the amended bullet point 6. We will reflect on specific issues later. In particular, we will consider the detailed point that Mr Neil raised on the first bullet point.

Members indicated agreement.

It is now almost 1 o'clock. We have two items left on the agenda, one of which has to be taken in private. I do not think that we need to consider item 6 today. Like other agenda items, it is likely to lead to some discussion. Are members happy that we should defer item 6 but deal with item 7?

I am happy to delay discussion provided that no reports come from the commissioner until we have agreed on the principle. As I argued when we discussed the previous case that we dealt with, the principle is very important, dealing as it does with the availability of the draft report to both parties.

But what you suggest would mean that we would not consider item 7 now.

Item 7 has already been more or less completed. We have received a report.

As far as I am aware, we have received no other complaints against MSPs. I intend that we should consider item 6 at our next meeting, whenever we decide to hold that meeting—either later this month or, as I suspect members will want, on 20 April.

The issue is important and I am sure that members will have a lot to say on it. If we are going to defer discussion of item 6, we should agree to discuss it at the meeting that has been provisionally scheduled for 23 March.

I think that that is fair.

Okay. We do not have to decide on that here and now, but I take it that members are happy with my proposal that we defer our consideration of item 6 and that we now move on to consider item 7 in private.

Members indicated agreement.

I seek the committee's permission to use my discretion in deciding whether we should have a meeting on 23 March. I will discuss the suitability of that date with members individually. I am happy to consider dealing with the matter at the meeting on 23 March, but that might not be convenient for everyone and I would rather not spend five minutes debating that now. We should deal with the matter at a meeting no later than 20 April and it should be the first item on the agenda. Are members satisfied with that?

I am happy with that.

I am happy to have a private discussion about the matter.

Convener, before we move on, I want to put on the record that I am not happy about the e-mail that we received last night, which I regard as an attempt to bounce the committee at its meeting this morning. We received an e-mail from the clerks at 4 pm last night, on the ground that it was a late paper, but it relates to an e-mail that was sent on 3 March at 10.30 and I do not see why it could not have been included in the papers that were distributed on Thursday night.

That was not the clerks' fault; it was my fault.

I am not blaming anyone, I am just saying—

The reason why members were sent the e-mail at all was that I believed that it was important that the information should be available to members—it was not originally the intention that members would have that information. The information was not issued with the intention of bouncing anybody into taking a particular position. I was aware that there was a range of views on the issue in the committee and I thought that as I was aware of the content of the e-mail, it would be appropriate for other members to have the opportunity to read it. I accept full responsibility for that and I am sorry if you felt that there was an attempt to influence the debate in a particular direction; that was not the intention.

Okay, I accept your word on that. The e-mail is full of inaccuracies—obviously I will comment on that at the meeting at which we discuss the matter.

Perhaps we should deal with that at our next meeting. The information will be available to members then.

Meeting continued in private until 13:10.