Standards Committee, 18 Dec 2002

Meeting date: Wednesday, December 18, 2002

Official Report 109KB pdf

---

Draft Committee Report (Alleged Unauthorised Disclosure)

We move on to item 4, which concerns the alleged leak of the Justice 1 Committee's draft report on its inquiry into the regulation of the legal profession. Members have copies of the correspondence between the convener of the Justice 1 Committee, Christine Grahame, and me. The complaint that was referred to the Standards Committee does not name an individual member. Nevertheless, under paragraph 10.2.3 of the code of conduct, we may exercise our discretion to refer the complaint to the standards adviser for his consideration.

Members will recall that, following our inquiry last year into the confidentiality provisions of the code of conduct, we agreed that we would seek the views of the committee concerned before deciding whether to exercise our discretion.

My views on the matter are well documented. Frankly, it is a waste of time trying to find a leak. As no name has been put forward, we are simply chasing our tails. We have been down this route before. That is unfortunate, as the Standards Committee is the body to which members have to refer such a complaint. However, the history of Parliaments is that people do not say, "It was me; I cannae tell a lie."

Members will note that, in my letter of 5 December to Christine Grahame, I asked for

"the Justice 1 Committee's views on the following:

An assessment of whether a full investigation is likely to be productive.

Information on the circumstances of the alleged unauthorised disclosure …

Confirmation that an unauthorised disclosure has actually taken place."

Since 5 December, I have received no communication on this matter.

I am a member of the Justice 1 Committee. Yesterday the committee considered the matter in public, so I need say no more.

What conclusion was reached? Does the Justice 1 Committee want the Standards Committee to continue its investigation?

It is for the convener of the Justice 1 Committee to communicate with the convener of the Standards Committee.

We have not progressed this matter. A precedent was set when we last considered a similar case. As I have done on this occasion, I wrote a detailed letter to the convener of the committee concerned to ascertain from the committee whether it felt that it would be productive for us to refer the matter to the standards adviser. We should proceed only if we think that such a step would be productive. We have received no communication from the Justice 1 Committee. Perhaps we should defer consideration of the matter until our next meeting.

We should definitely do that. If the Justice 1 Committee discussed the matter in public, presumably some members of the public know what the committee concluded. I am sanguine about whether it is possible for us to discover anything about the source of this leak, even though it is particularly blatant.

I do not think that there have been any new developments since the exchange of correspondence between the convener of the Justice 1 Committee and the convener of the Standards Committee.

Once I have received confirmation of the Justice 1 Committee's conclusions, I will respond appropriately. Are members content that I should do that?

Members indicated agreement.