Standards Committee, 19 Jun 2001

Meeting date: Tuesday, June 19, 2001

Official Report 102KB pdf

---

Confidentiality

Item 5 relates to our inquiry into confidentiality. As requested by the committee, the clerks have produced an issues paper that considers the approach that the House of Commons and the Canadian Senate take to investigating leaks, whereby subject committees conduct an initial investigation. The paper recommends that further research is conducted and suggests that we take soundings from conveners before proceeding. Do members have comments?

Given that when leaks have occurred, neither the adviser nor we have been able to resolve the matter in a way that identifies where the leak came from, we must seriously consider the options that are used in Westminster and elsewhere. Those options may not improve on previous systems, but we must try them.

I could not agree more. In the history of parliamentary democracy in the United Kingdom, the source of a leak has never been discovered. Like Patricia Ferguson, I feel that it is probably unlikely that we will ever discover the source of a leak and that we must try other ways. There is a chance that the subject committee might be the best first port of call.

I agree with Kay Ullrich. I think that the Parliament—not just the Standards Committee—must make it absolutely clear that it abhors leaks from committees. Leaks undermine much of the hard work of committees. Both the committee in question and the Parliament are brought into disrepute when information is leaked to the press, particularly in advance of the publication of a committee report or other official document.

I regret the fact that we are not allowed to put people in thumbscrews to find out who is responsible for leaks, but given that we really cannot do that—I am sure it is an implication of the European convention on human rights that we cannot—we must consider how to address the problem. We should perhaps consider the possibility of committees initiating the first leak inquiry themselves. It has proved impossible for the Standards Committee to do this, but perhaps peer pressure from within committees will encourage some members to behave a bit more responsibly and a bit more honourably towards the Parliament and its systems.

I obviously agree with colleagues who believe that leaks have to be investigated and followed up. I notice that "Erskine May" states:

"the committee should decide whether or not the leak constitutes a substantial interference".

It is not in the public interest that disproportionate time should be spent on relatively minor matters, but if there is "substantial interference" with the work of a committee, the matter must be treated seriously and dealt with accordingly.

Are we content to consult the other conveners on the basis of the paper before us?

Members indicated agreement.