Standards Committee, 11 Sep 2002

Meeting date: Wednesday, September 11, 2002

Official Report 107KB pdf

---

Draft Committee Report (Alleged Unauthorised Disclosure)

The third agenda item relates to an alleged so-called leak of a draft Justice 1 Committee report prior to the summer recess. Members have seen my correspondence with the convener of the Justice 1 Committee, Christine Grahame, who asked the Standards Committee to consider investigating the alleged leak. The complaint has been referred to the committee because it does not name an individual member. Under the rules, we may nevertheless, if members so wish, exercise our discretion to refer the matter to the standards adviser for his consideration. Members will recall that, following last year's inquiry into the confidentiality provisions in the code of conduct, we agreed that in future we would seek the views of the committee concerned before deciding whether to exercise that discretion. Christine Grahame provided further information in her letter of 22 July. I ask for members' views on the course of action that we should take.

As I am a member of the Justice 1 Committee, I am content to absent myself from the consideration of this item. I do not propose to say anything about it. The convener of the Justice 1 Committee has made the committee's views clear.

It is not necessary for you to leave if you wish to stay.

Leaks of committee material are damaging to committees and to the Parliament, for the reasons that Christine Grahame's letter spells out. Leaks can damage trust and undermine committees' work. I sympathise with the Justice 1 Committee members. Our difficulty is that the process of dealing with leaks in the past has not been entirely satisfactory. We have tried to improve the process by referring leaks back to committees to get something more substantial to work on. I appreciate that Christine Grahame reconsidered the matter, although, as her letter was sent in July, she probably did so without the involvement of the other committee members. She states her arguments clearly, but there is not sufficient extra information to instigate an inquiry.

An inquiry would serve little purpose in this case. At the same time, I am concerned that we would send out the wrong signal to the Justice 1 Committee. I suggest that we write to that committee to say that we are not minded to conduct an inquiry without more evidence that the adviser could use in an investigation.

I agree that the leak of confidential material undermines the work of a committee and the trust among committee members. The Standards Committee has had many discussions about unauthorised leaks. Ken Macintosh has explained our difficulties in dealing with such matters.

When we considered a previous leak, we circulated a paper that outlined what we considered to be appropriate procedures, not the least of which was that, in the first instance, the committee from which a leak comes should be asked to investigate. Only then should the matter be referred to the Standards Committee. I have read carefully the material that Christine Grahame provided, including the Official Report of the meeting of Tuesday 18 June, when the matter was discussed. In the minds of the Justice 1 Committee members, the Standards Committee was the first option—members decided immediately that the matter would be referred to the Standards Committee.

Committees have a responsibility to carry out at least an initial investigation before a case comes to us. I suggest that we write back to Christine Grahame to draw her attention to our previous report on the issue and that we ask the Justice 1 Committee to carry out an initial report. Only after that, if the Justice 1 Committee considers that there is sufficient evidence to warrant a Standards Committee investigation, should the committee and the standards adviser get involved.

I refer members to something that I thought was interesting. The papers include a copy of the Official Report of the Justice 1 Committee meeting on Tuesday 18 June. I refer to Maureen Macmillan's comments:

"Despite the fact that the journalist says that he has a copy of the draft report, from what I read of the article, the report was not quoted accurately. I am not sure whether he is pretending that he has a copy or whether he has one."—[Official Report, Justice 1 Committee, 18 June 2002;
c 3894.]

It struck me from reading that that the newspaper report contained inaccuracies. I am not even sure whether a leak took place. I happen to agree with Maureen Macmillan's comments.

As has been said, it is important that the committee reiterate its view that the leaking of parliamentary reports is a serious matter. Whatever the outcome of our discussion on the case, it must not be taken to suggest otherwise. However, I concur with Tricia Marwick and Ken Macintosh that the evidence that has been presented to us and the details of the case are such that, on this occasion, it would not be productive or appropriate for the committee to take the matter further. I am attracted to the point that Tricia Marwick made about the responsibility of committees to have a higher threshold before they refer such matters to the Standards Committee. Perhaps committees could go through other stages or undertake other work.

Is the committee content with that?

Members indicated agreement.

I reiterate that that is the most appropriate approach. We have the discretion to investigate and we are using that discretion appropriately in this case. I will write to the convener of the Justice 1 Committee expressing what has been suggested.