Standards Committee, 12 Sep 2001

Meeting date: Wednesday, September 12, 2001

Official Report 130KB pdf

---

Confidentiality

Item 4 relates to the committee's review of the confidentiality provisions in the code of conduct for MSPs. When we met on 19 June, we agreed that I should seek the views of the conveners liaison group on a paper that sets out the procedures for investigating leaks at Westminster and in the Senate of Canada, where the committee that is involved carries out the initial investigation.

The CLG considered the paper at its meeting yesterday and expressed a preference for committee leaks to be investigated by an independent investigator. One convener suggested that in deciding whether to investigate a leak, the Standards Committee should take a view on the seriousness of the leak and whether an investigation would be productive and worthwhile. That is, in fact, the case at the moment. Our methods of investigation make it abundantly clear that members should be named when complaints are upheld against them, although we reserve the right to launch an investigation when that does not occur. The conveners liaison group seems to be suggesting that we should make that judgment when such complaints are received. At the moment, complaints that we have received have been referred for investigation almost automatically.

I open the floor to comment.

I am a little unclear about the CLG's intentions. We begin the process when we receive a complaint. Is the CLG suggesting that we should not do that?

No. I suggested to the CLG that leaks could, in the first case, be investigated by committees themselves. However, that did not meet with universal approval—to put it mildly.

Perhaps that response should have been expected. The good conduct of MSPs and of the Parliament does not rest in the hands of the members of the Standards Committee; it is the responsibility of us all. Acting as an independent body with an adviser, we have conducted a number of inquiries but have found it almost impossible to find out who was responsible for the leaks.

I have already expressed my disappointment that such leaks take place, but the responsibility lies first of all with members. Committees should be responsible for carrying out an initial investigation. If committees are unwilling to police themselves, they should not expect others to do it for them. The problem is one not only for the Standards Committee but for the whole Parliament. I cannot express my anger enough that the conveners liaison group seems not to appreciate the seriousness of its position or its responsibility to assist the Standards Committee and the rest of the Parliament to stamp out this practice once and for all.

From my experience in the House of Commons, I understand that the leak of a select committee report is considered an extremely serious misdemeanour and is treated as such. A distinction must be made between relatively minor leaks that involve carelessness—people saying more than they ought—and the deliberate leaking to outsiders of the conclusions of a committee report, when that committee has interviewed people and has acted very much like a select committee. If the matter is minor, the committees concerned should play some part in the sifting process; if the matter is major, the committee concerned should consider it first and the matter should also come to us.

I agree that the committee concerned should be the first port of call for any leak. We have seen the knee-jerk reaction to leaks from past examples, in which the Standards Committee has received a letter from each member of the other committee. Before they put pen to paper, they would be better to consider the leak within their own committee and then, if necessary, the Standards Committee could also deal with it. The conveners should look at the matter again and accept their responsibility.

I agree. The committees and their conveners are much closer to the issues and understand the politics—with a small p—of their own committee. Because of the scheduling of meetings and so on, they are much more able to act immediately and they really must be involved in the process. I can understand that investigating leaks might be uncomfortable from time to time but, as Tricia Marwick said, leaks are the responsibility not only of the Standards Committee but of everyone in the Parliament.

I share the consensus view that has developed round the table. Apart from the arguments that have already been put forward, it does not do the Standards Committee any good to be constantly investigating committee leaks with little success. A sifting process, through which committees address leaks themselves, would help.

What Kenneth Macintosh says reflects what everyone else on the committee has said previously. I made the committee's views quite clear to everyone at the conveners liaison group meeting yesterday. I was a lone voice at the group. You should be aware of the strength of feeling of the conveners liaison group on this point.

To return to what Patricia Ferguson said, conveners and committee members will be well aware of political nuances in a certain report. In many instances, that will narrow down whence the leaks come.

It has been suggested that many leaks have emanated from inside committees, rather than from other folk, such as staff. It is funny that committees may feel that leaks could do anything other than contaminate any investigation process that they are carrying out. It should be a matter of winning the debate. I am with Tricia Marwick and the rest of the committee with regard to that and to people taking responsibility for their actions. People may be able to tell me otherwise, but, I do not think that there has ever been a leak from the Standards Committee. That perhaps tells its own story.

There was an accusation of a leak.

The issue is whether there can be a review process in which the conveners liaison group, working with you, convener, and the Standards Committee, somehow takes those issues seriously. Otherwise, there can sometimes be a mad flurry of e-mails, saying, "It wisnae me, guv, it was a big guy who broke the windae and ran away."

Or a big, black dug.

There is an issue surrounding the independence of a separate committee and its ability to investigate an alleged leak thoroughly.

The other core issue is the quality of investigatory work. If its thoroughness or rigour is not perceived, that could give rise to complacency. However, that will not be the case if we get the quality of investigation right—a couple of bodies might eventually have to be thrown overboard, which might send a message to folk and discipline them about personal responsibility.

On a point of information, I believe that never in Westminster history—and certainly not here—has the identity of the big, black dug been found.

Have there not been a few cases over the past few years to do with leakage to ministers at Westminster?

But as far as committees are concerned, the big, black dug has never been found.

Actually, there was one MP—I do not think that there is any need to name him—who was made to make an apology, and stand and be subject to a very substantial rebuke from the Speaker, before the whole House of Commons. It has happened; it is well- documented.

I stand corrected.

I am not sure how we take this matter forward. Part of the reason for wishing the other committees to be involved is to share the responsibility and to ensure that the committees and their members take responsibility for their own conduct. It is no secret that, in all the complaints that we have had about leaks from committees, we have never found a culprit and are likely never to find a culprit. Frankly, it is not the job of the Standards Committee to find them. Unless they own up, it is unlikely that they will be found. It is an educational process and a culture process.

A number of us have expressed concern from day one that there seems to be a growing culture of leaking within the Parliament. We in the Standards Committee cannot address that on our own. That is why we want the other committees to take on more responsibility. That is the only way in which we can tackle the culture that appears to be growing in the Parliament and has to be nipped in the bud.

The conveners liaison group has no statutory basis in the—

It is now enshrined in the standing orders.

I stand corrected. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. The CLG, as it is enshrined in standing orders, has some basis within the Parliament. Although I do not think that the Standards Committee should be telling the conveners liaison group what it will do, there comes a point where the CLG needs to be reminded of its responsibilities to the whole Parliament.

As I have said, I am not sure how we proceed with the matter. A discussion in the Parliamentary Bureau might be helpful, but come what may, we must find a way of getting the committees and their conveners to take on some responsibility for the conduct of their committees. That is our aim.

Methods of investigation and related matters fall within the Standards Committee's remit. It is our responsibility to take the lead. At yesterday's meeting of the conveners liaison group, I consulted conveners on the process, which is a process of consultation. We now know the views of the CLG and must take them on board. How far we take them on board is important. In the first instance, we must address the issue.

The clerks have taken careful note of members' comments. I suggest that I ask the clerks to produce a paper to allow us to make decisions at our next meeting. It is important that we have something written down to suggest how we proceed. Are members content with that?

Indeed. When committee conveners and members see the proposals, they might not be so hostile. Paragraph 9 of our paper recommends that committees follow a standard practice.

I want to ensure that you know about the strength of feeling among conveners. They did not want to do the work themselves. We must be clear about that. No matter how the work is done, they do not want to do it. They felt that it was appropriate that someone independent did it.

Perhaps a paper that summarised the Standards Committee's difficulties and the need for other committees, at least initially, to consider matters, would be appropriate.

We are talking about initial consideration.

I have a hope—perhaps pious—that knowing that committees were part of the process and involved in the first sift of information might persuade people not to leak information, because they would know that the person who would look into the leak would be a fellow committee member who would be likely to make a fair guess at the leak's source. Such a procedure would be part of a preventive approach. Perhaps we need to get such an argument across to conveners and explain that we expect them to be not the watchdog, but just part of the process.