Standards Committee, 11 Sep 2002

Meeting date: Wednesday, September 11, 2002

Official Report 107KB pdf

---

Disclosure of Complaints

Item 4 is a revision to the code of conduct concerning the disclosure of complaints to the media. Members should have a draft amendment and an issues paper that details the background to the proposed change. The purpose of the amendment is to clarify the existing prohibition on members disclosing to the media details of complaints that are under investigation. The Parliament will debate the amendment on 3 October if the Parliamentary Bureau agrees.

The amendment strengthens the rules to prohibit members from publicising an intention to make a complaint to the Standards Committee as well as from speaking to the media after submitting a complaint. That deals fairly with an issue that has come before the committee previously, but I would like to hear members' views on the proposal.

We discussed the matter at great length. I am happy that the amendment, plus what seems a straightforward and simple right of rebuttal, has been proposed. If our legal draftsmen are content with the way in which the proposal is worded, so am I.

What is the next stage? Will changes to the code of conduct go to the Parliament for approval?

Yes, they will be debated on 3 October. If the Parliament approves the changes, the code of conduct will be changed from 3 October.

It is important that MSPs have the opportunity to find out the thinking behind the amendment. I am not sure that all MSPs are aware that complaints to the Standards Committee should not go to the press first. Indeed, there should be no discussion about a complaint after it has been submitted to the committee. The forthcoming parliamentary debate gives us an opportunity to highlight the issue and to explain our proposed amendment. The committee might also consider writing to all MSPs, drawing their attention to the fact that there should be no discussion in the media before a complaint is lodged with the Standards Committee or during our consideration of it.

It is important that a letter, presumably in your name, convener, be sent to all MSPs on this matter. Perhaps the letter announcing an amendment to the code of conduct should not be written in a similar way to the many circulars that MSPs get, to whose detail members pay a varying level of attention. I think that a nice, user-friendly letter from you, explaining in clear terms what the amendment means, would be useful. I recall the issue being a matter of discussion when we considered the case that prompted the amendment.

On the substance of the proposed amendment, I seek one point of clarification or reassurance. Could the legal experts in the room or anyone else assure me that the amendment as phrased definitely includes all members, both the complainant and the complainee—if those are the correct terms? I was concerned about the previous draft of the relevant paragraph. The matter came into sharp focus in relation to the particular case that we were examining a few months ago. As I recall—I apologise that I am operating just from memory—the phrasing was ambiguous as to whether the same set of rules governed all MSPs including the member complained against, the MSP who had complained and, for that matter, any third-party MSPs. The wording in the proposed amendment is fine according to my reading of it, but I would welcome reassurance on that.

I invite Ruaraidh Macniven to come to the table to give us that reassurance.

I can indeed reassure Susan Deacon that the prohibition in the first part of the amendment applies to all members. The right to reply at the end of the amendment applies only to the member who is the subject of the complaint.

That appears to be clear from the wording of the amendment.

On Tricia Marwick's point about the level of awareness and communication with MSPs on such matters, I think that many MSPs are not aware that they should not be communicating to the media under the circumstances that we are discussing. If they are aware of that, they are perhaps not sufficiently aware of it. This is not about party-political knockabout or disagreements over policy; it is about impropriety, which is a distinct issue.

If members are content, I propose that, once the Parliamentary Bureau has approved the slot for a debate in the chamber, I will write to all members, drawing their attention to the debate and to the proposal, which will make them aware of the matter.

I thank our legal adviser, who has been getting into the habit of coming to give legal advice on the record. I hope that that does not get him into trouble.

That is not a happy position for him—his advice will be set down in black and white for us to quote back to him in the future.

If a complaint were substantiated, it would eventually become public as it would come before the Parliament. Would that be at stage 3 or stage 4 of the process?

At stage 3. Stages 1 and 2 are conducted in private.

So if somebody were found to be out of order, the matter would eventually become public.

Absolutely. Let me reiterate that the purpose of the proposals is to ensure fair play and a fair hearing. That is what we are interested to ensure.