Standards Committee, 13 Mar 2002

Meeting date: Wednesday, March 13, 2002

Official Report 107KB pdf

---

Complaints

I thank members of the public and press for their patience and welcome Alex Johnstone to the meeting.

Our final item of business this morning is to complete consideration of two reports from the standards adviser concerning two complaints against Alex Johnstone and to decide whether there has been a breach of the code of conduct. Both complaints relate to statements attributed to Mr Johnstone that appeared in a leaflet published during a local by-election in Aberdeenshire.

The first complaint is from Alan Campbell, the chief executive of Aberdeenshire Council. Mr Campbell highlighted the leaflet's assertion that Mr Johnstone had expressed concern about an apparent deterioration in communication between him and Aberdeenshire Council, and had questioned whether co-operation had been curtailed in order to protect the interests of the Liberal Democrat-controlled council. The complainer expressed concern that an MSP

"is prepared to print criticisms of local authority employees and openly question their integrity and professionalism in the form of a leaflet that is circulated on the morning of an election."

The adviser has concluded that there has been no breach of the code of conduct. We must now decide whether we accept that finding. I ask members for their views.

We considered both complaints in detail. I do not believe that Alex Johnstone acted in breach of the code of conduct or of confidentiality with regard to the first complaint, although I would not want to encourage misplaced criticism of local authorities. The same applies to the second complaint.

For the moment, I would like us to deal only with the first complaint, which was made by Alan Campbell, the chief executive of Aberdeenshire Council.

The information with which we have been provided indicates that there has been no breach of the code of conduct. However, I want to put on record the general principle that elected members need to be careful when dealing with the sensitive issue of relationships with local government. I am sure that Alex Johnstone recognises that. Our criticisms of local government, which are sometimes generated in the heat and light of election campaigns, need to be robust and able to stand up to scrutiny. We should always bear that in mind when making such criticisms. I do not believe that the member has breached the code of conduct. For that reason, Mr Campbell's complaint should not be upheld.

I agree with the view that other members have expressed. I do not think that in this instance there has been a breach of the code of conduct, so the complaint should not be upheld. I concur with the general comments that other members have made about the need for members to act sensitively in circumstances such as those with which we are dealing, but I do not believe that there has been a breach of the code.

Like other members of the committee, I do not think that there has been a breach of the code. For that reason, the complaint should not be upheld.

My finding is that in this instance there has been no breach of the code.

I accept the adviser's report and the views expressed by other members that in this instance there has been no breach of the code of conduct.

The second complaint is from Mrs Lynn Millar and relates to another statement attributed to Alex Johnstone in the same leaflet. Mr Johnstone is quoted as saying:

"I am still awaiting a reply from Aberdeenshire Council after I asked it to investigate concerns from a constituent regarding Mrs Lynn Millar, the Liberal Democrat candidate in this Thursday's by-election, and planning regulations."

The complainer expressed concern about the inclusion of that information in the leaflet and questioned whether it was acceptable for Mr Johnstone to publicise it in that manner.

The adviser has established that Mr Johnstone accepts that the statement contained in the leaflet is his and that he authorised its inclusion in the leaflet. The adviser has drawn the committee's attention to two paragraphs in the code of conduct. Section 2.5 of the code states:

"In representing people's interests, members have a duty to respect individual privacy, unless there are overwhelming reasons in the wider public interest for disclosure to be made to a relevant authority, for example where a member is made aware of criminal activity."

Section 9.1.1 of the code states:

"Members of the Scottish Parliament are accountable to the Scottish electorate who will expect them to carry out their Parliamentary duties in an appropriate manner consistent with the standing of the Parliament and not to engage in any activity as a member that would bring the Parliament into disrepute."

The adviser has sought the committee's decision on whether the facts as presented in his report breach either of those provisions. I will once again go round the table and ask members to sum up their views.

I have some sympathy for the complainant, Mrs Lynn Millar, particularly given the fact that the concern raised against her was thrown out by the local council. I particularly welcome the fact that Alex Johnstone has offered to write to Mrs Millar. In this case, we see that there are many circumstances in which it is in order to publicise concerns about somebody who may hold a position of public office. In the circumstances, I do not believe that a complaint should be upheld against Alex Johnstone.

I have had a good look at the adviser's report. I think that some of the member's conduct was regrettable, but it was not in breach of the code of conduct. It is paramount that, as members, we deal with matters in a way that protects the privacy of our individual case load. I welcome the fact that the member has indicated that he will write to the complainant—it would be interesting to see the response, mind you—and so I am happy to say that I support the adviser's report. I accept that the member's conduct could be viewed as regrettable, but it does not represent a breach of the code of conduct.

I viewed this complaint as quite different from the first one, not least because an individual was involved and the matter was quite serious. I thought that it was significant that, when the unsubstantiated allegations were made, the information had been gleaned during the course of Alex Johnstone's work as an MSP, as the adviser's report states. I believe that the conduct was regrettable, but having considered the matter carefully, I do not believe that there was a breach of the code of conduct. I certainly think that all members ought to show due regard to individual privacy, so I regret the conduct in this case, albeit that I am content to agree that the code was not breached.

Similarly, I recognise the concerns that members have about the conduct. Perhaps this case should be a lesson to us all, especially in the heat of battle in an election campaign. Like the other members of the committee, I do not find that there has been a breach of the code of conduct. I also commend Mr Johnstone on his willingness to write to the complainant.

My finding is that there was no breach of the code of conduct. Freedom of speech and freedom of expression are important democratic principles and we should be careful not to restrict those freedoms. I am also mindful of the fact that Mr Johnstone has offered to write to the lady concerned.

Like the other members of the committee, I find that there has been no breach of the code of conduct. I welcome Alex Johnstone's expression of regret and the fact that he will contact the constituent. We thank him for that.

I would like to thank members of the committee for the views that they have expressed and to reinforce the views that were contained in my letter. It is a matter of extreme regret to me that my views—I freely admit that they were mine—were carried in such a way as to cause such embarrassment to the lady involved. I will genuinely apologise to Lynn Millar for the way in which the views were expressed and for the offence that she took to them. I will write in the terms that I set out in my last communication to the committee and will ensure that the views in the letter are expressed to the satisfaction of members of the committee and its convener.

Thank you very much for that. The committee will consider and publish a report, which will be available in due course.

Meeting closed at 11:04.