Procedures Committee, 09 Sep 2003

Meeting date: Tuesday, September 9, 2003

Official Report 196KB pdf

---

Draft Report (Unauthorised Disclosure)

Item 3 is consideration of a background report on the leak of a draft report both before and after our consideration of it at our meeting two weeks ago. The report also suggests courses of action.

Before going on to that, I want to draw members' attention to a particular matter. I regret that Jamie McGrigor is not here, because I do not like to appear to be doing things behind people's backs. I find it unacceptable that people should comment on a draft report in a debate. That draft report did not contain the views of the committee or of any member of the committee. The draft report was merely a document to assist the committee to reach its final conclusions.

The following day, that was compounded by Bill Aitken who, in speaking against the business motion, said:

"It was clear that, at one stage, the Procedures Committee was minded to recommend that First Minister's questions should be held at 2 pm on a Thursday."—[Official Report, 4 September; c 1470.]

At no stage was the Procedures Committee so minded. The committee was minded only once it had made a decision on its report.

In my view, those are both breaches of the Standards Committee guidance, which states:

"public discussion of draft reports can give preliminary views a status they do not warrant and lead to recommendations or findings not adopted by the committee being prematurely attributed to it"—

or even subsequently attributed to it. I find what happened unacceptable.

On a point of order, convener. As far as I can see, the agenda item is a report on the alleged leak of the draft report on First Minister's question time. Although the issues that you raise are linked, they are not material to the item that is on today's agenda for discussion. I may have a view on what you have said—I share some of your views and disagree with others—but it is not right that we should introduce that to the agenda at this stage. I certainly was not prepared for that discussion today. I am happy to have a pretty robust discussion about what should and should not be allowed in public, but if we are to do that, we should do it properly by having it as an agenda item that we can discuss in a proper manner.

Sorry, my view was that the issues were linked. Obviously, what happened in those two debates took place after the clerk's paper was prepared and issued to members, so those issues could not be included within the report. However, I felt that they were on the same topic and could therefore be raised. If you wish us to return to them at a later date, I am happy to do that, but I think that they are related.

My view is that we need to divorce the two issues. Whether someone in the chamber acted in an erroneous manner by discussing material that was the subject of committee discussion is entirely different from the issue of leaking. It may be that both issues involve inappropriate behaviour, but they are not linked to such a degree that we should discuss the two things under this item. I am concerned that doing so might deflect from the issue of the leak, which is what we should be discussing. A discussion on other issues must be separated out from the leak. Otherwise, we might come to a conclusion that was based on the paper before us but influenced by what was said on another issue that is not entirely material to the issue that we are here to discuss.

I know what you are saying, Bruce, but all these issues are to do with the use of material from a draft report.

We would not necessarily draw the same conclusions just because the two actions were being discussed at the same time.

I felt that the issue should be raised at this point because it concerned the same draft report being raised in public.

The issue can be raised at this committee, but I am not sure that we should mix up the two issues when we are making a decision.

I am new to this. When the point was made in the chamber about the erroneous use of the draft report, people shouted that that happens all the time. I would value having a paper that indicated whether it has happened on previous occasions. I do not feel able to take part in the discussion because I do not know the background.

If I may suggest a way forward, we should refer the issue to the standards commissioner and ask him to investigate the leak. Whether or not we come up with who leaked the draft report, we need to set a standard for the committee that says that leaking draft reports is not acceptable, full stop. The matter must be referred to the appropriate authority.

The other issue is a matter of trust in the committee. We need to have a separate discussion among ourselves—not necessarily today—as to how we treat one another and respect one another. Quite frankly, I am not prepared to have open clear discussions in the committee in a private session about a draft report if they are then to be subject to discussions in the chamber or elsewhere in public.

Yes, it has happened before. We are kidding ourselves if we say that it has not. However, it does not happen in all committees and it is up to the committee members to determine whether they want it to happen in their committee. We will get a much more beneficial discussion and a much better committee that works together if we can trust one another. It does not need to happen. It is up to the members of the committee. We need to discuss those issues when all committee members are present.

That is a valid point and it is a fair way forward. Do people agree that that is how we should deal with the issue?

That is the point that I was trying to make. If we are going to have an investigation to deal with the points that Karen Gillon has raised, it should be separate.

I turn to whether we should put the matter to the Standards Committee. I agree generally with Karen Gillon that we have to nip it in the bud. Paragraph 13 of the report states:

"As indicated above, complaints to the Standards Commissioner must name a Member. In the event that a complaint fails to name a Member … a recommendation as to whether or not the complaint should nevertheless be investigated"

is required. Can such a recommendation come from us?

My understanding of the paragraph is that if a member were not named, the Standards Committee would consider a complaint, but would take account of the recommendation of the Procedures Committee on whether to investigate. We would decide whether to put the matter to the standards commissioner with the recommendation that it be investigated.

In that case, I share Karen Gillon's view.

Do members agree to refer the matter to the standards commissioner with the recommendation that the leak be investigated?

Members indicated agreement.

I ask that the other matter be put on the agenda for our next meeting. Do we agree to hold that discussion in private?

Members indicated agreement.