Complaint
The next item on our agenda is initial consideration of a report from the standards adviser concerning a complaint against Henry McLeish. As agreed at the beginning of the meeting, we will now move into private session. The committee's decision on the complaint will be made in public as soon as we have considered the report. I ask members of the public and press, and broadcasting and official report staff, to leave the room.
Meeting continued in private.
Meeting continued in public.
I thank the public and press for their patience. Our final item is to decide whether we agree with the adviser's report on a complaint against Henry McLeish and whether the code of conduct has been breached. Before we do so, I will outline for the benefit of the public and press the complaint against Henry McLeish and the adviser's findings.
The complaint was made by Tommy Sheridan and is twofold. First, Tommy Sheridan alleged that Henry McLeish's decision to accept a House of Commons resettlement allowance when he stood down as an MP, having told the Parliament at First Minister's questions on 16 November 2000 that he did not intend to accept the allowance, was a breach of the code of conduct. Specifically, Tommy Sheridan highlighted section 2.8 of the code, which states:
"Members have a duty to act honestly. They must declare any private interests relating to their public duties and take steps to resolve any conflicts arising in a way that protects the public interest."
Tommy Sheridan's second allegation concerns Henry McLeish's registrable interests. Specifically, Tommy Sheridan asked why Mr McLeish had taken three years to register alleged income amounting to £2,000 from two research companies. Tommy Sheridan did not identify the companies concerned.
The adviser has investigated the complaint and we now have his report. On the first allegation, he found, on two grounds, that there had been no breach of the code of conduct. First, Henry McLeish's statement to the Parliament was an honest statement of intent. Secondly, the acceptance of the allowance from Westminster to which he was entitled was not an act carried out in the course of his parliamentary duties as an MSP and therefore not a matter for the code of conduct. The remits of the code and of the committee extend only to members' conduct of their parliamentary duties as MSPs.
On the second complaint, Henry McLeish registered remuneration from two research companies in June 1999 in compliance with the requirements of the Scotland Act 1998 (Transitory and Transitional Provisions) (Members' Interests) Order 1999 and the code of conduct. The adviser has therefore recommended that the complaint should not be upheld.
The committee must decide whether we agree with the adviser's report and whether Henry McLeish has breached the code of conduct. As is our normal practice in such matters, I will seek the views of each member.
I uphold the adviser's findings. The issue seems to be an issue of personal conduct and is therefore outwith the Scottish Parliament's code of conduct.
However, I am disappointed that Mr McLeish said one thing to the Parliament and then did the complete opposite. I also want to stress that if the committee upholds the adviser's report, I hope that our decision will not be seen as an okay for a First Minister or any minister to be absolved of responsibility for making misleading statements to the Parliament. The pressure of question time is no excuse for saying one thing to get off the hook, and then doing something else at a later date. Such behaviour brings the Parliament into disrepute. However, as the adviser's report says, the allowance in question came from Westminster and is outwith our jurisdiction.
I uphold the adviser's findings. There has been no breach of the code of conduct, but the actions that are complained about could be interpreted as not being within the spirit of the code of conduct. Although I believe that there has been no breach, I recommend, as a matter of good practice, that, in the absence of powerful arguments to the contrary, statements of intention should be followed through.
I accept and agree with the adviser's report. In the strictest sense, the adviser is absolutely correct.
However, I also agree with James Douglas-Hamilton that, although the letter of the law has not been broken in respect of the code, the spirit of the law may have been. Whatever has happened has not brought credit to the Parliament. Members of the public must have faith in the absolute integrity of members and have complete trust in statements that they make. That is even more the case in respect of a member who holds the highest office in Scotland. On this occasion, that faith may have been dented. Changed circumstances have been brought into the argument and may be a reason for changing one's mind, but they are not an excuse for the conduct in question.
The matter is a salutary lesson about the complainant and the subject of the complaint, Mr Sheridan. Politics is about more than salaries and allowances and a bidding war on who will take least. Such politics always end in tears.
I also agree with the adviser's findings and the conclusions of his report on this occasion. I do not believe that there has been a breach of the code of conduct in this instance. However, it is at least arguable that the actions described do not accord with the spirit of the code. I recognise that individual circumstances in this case had changed, and I also recognise that the spontaneous nature of political exchange, especially in the chamber, can often lead to sometimes unwitting comments and commitments being made by members, which may, at a later stage, be difficult to uphold. There are lessons for us all in that respect. The highest possible standards of integrity and trust are required from all MSPs, particularly at this time, and the actions and events on this occasion are therefore regrettable. However, I believe that no further action should be taken and that it is time for us to move on.
I will sum up on behalf of the committee. There is a unanimous decision to uphold the adviser's report. There is a unanimous view that there has been no breach of the code of conduct. Our independent adviser has made it quite clear that Henry McLeish's actions were not to do with his parliamentary duties as an MSP—the allowance was from Westminster and not the Scottish Parliament—and that when he made the statement, he made it with honest intent. However, members feel that it was regrettable, to say the least, that Mr McLeish's actions were not within the spirit of the code. Do members agree with that summary?
Members indicated agreement.
Rather than hold another meeting to do the draft report, we will ask the clerks, as they have enough information, to produce a draft report, which we will agree to by correspondence. I hope to publish our report and the standards adviser's report in full on Friday. Is that agreed?
Members indicated agreement.
Meeting closed at 10:52.