Justice 1 Committee, 17 Dec 2002

Meeting date: Tuesday, December 17, 2002

Official Report 278KB pdf

---

Convener's Report

Agenda item 2 is the convener's report. I refer members to paper J1/02/43/1, which is a response from the Standards Committee on the unauthorised disclosure of this committee's report on our inquiry into the regulation of the legal profession.

The Standards Committee notes that the Justice 1 Committee has not identified a member in relation to the complaint—what a surprise. The Standards Committee's procedure in such instances is to invite the relevant committee to give its views on the matter, which allows the Standards Committee to decide whether the circumstances of the leak warrant a stage 2 investigation and referral to the Standards Committee adviser.

I invite members to give their views on the issues that are raised on the second page of the Standards Committee's letter. There are three bullet points.

It does not seem to me that we can take the matter much further forward. We do not have a suspect, although this is the second time that a committee report has been leaked. The last bullet point in the letter from Mike Rumbles says that it is necessary to assess whether it was lucky guesswork or whether the language that was used indicates that there was definitely a leak. I would say that the second incident was definitely a leak because the language that was used was so close—in fact it was identical—to that which was used in the report. I do not know whether we can take the matter much further if we do not have a suspect.

We have been here before with the previous leak. The Standards Committee was unable to progress the matter because we could not identify a suspect. Like Maureen Macmillan, I am not sure whether we can take the matter further and whether the commissioner or the Standards Committee will be able to pursue the matter further. It is similar to the previous situation, when nothing could be done.

There is a difference from the last time—I think that this was a leak. In retrospect, I do not honestly think that the first incident was a leak because in that incident information was stitched together. I agree that we cannot pursue the matter further because we do not know who was responsible and because whoever did it will deny it. We should confirm to the Standards Committee that a leak has taken place, so that they can get their records up to date, and we should leave it at that.

I am on the Standards Committee, so I do not think that it is appropriate for me to say anything at this stage. Obviously, I deplore what has happened—[Interruption.]

Excuse me. It is very difficult to hear Lord James over the tiptoeing of feet on the hard floor. Wait until everyone is settled, Lord James, then we will hear what you have to say.

I deplore what has happened. The unauthorised leaking of information that is contained in a committee report that is due for publication is contrary to the interests of the committee and the Parliament. If there is evidence against a specific member, the matter should be pursued. As I mentioned, I am on the Standards Committee and to the best of my knowledge there is no obvious suspect in this case.

I endorse what Lord James and others have said. The matter is very disappointing; if one person does it we could all do it. The committee works only because it has a degree of integrity in such matters when it is preparing its drafts and reports. It would be a waste of our time to pursue the matter, but that does not mean that the committee does not deplore the action. I hope that such incidents do not become a habit when committees start up in the new session, otherwise the committee procedures will not work at their best. I am sorry that that is the position—we must now move on.

Before we move on to the next item, I say that some of us visited Cornton Vale and it might be appropriate for us to comment on that at the next meeting. We had a meeting with the governor, which I found very helpful. Meeting people is different from writing to them or speaking to them on the telephone. It was helpful that Lord James Douglas-Hamilton, Donald Gorrie and I went there. I now know my way to the prison, but we will say no more about that, because it took rather a long time to get there. The sad thing is that I had been there before.