Good afternoon. The first item on the agenda is the report that members of the committee requested at our meeting on 8 October. Members received the report at the end of last week. I would like to convey the committee's thanks to those involved in preparing the report, especially to Malcolm Duncan.
I have read Mr Duncan's report on Jackie Baillie very carefully. The process by which she accepted the invitation seems impeccable. I do not know what the rest of my colleagues feel about that.
I agree. I have read through all the information we have here and it seems that Jackie conducted herself in a manner in which we would all hope to conduct ourselves when accepting or declining invitations. She is to be commended for that.
Is everybody happy with that?
I suggest that the committee has no further interest in the case of Jackie Baillie. I certainly do not think that we will call Jackie Baillie to the committee to give further evidence, as she has no case to answer. We should conclude that aspect of the investigation.
I think that everybody accepts that there is no further case to answer.
I suggest that we should make public the information that we have on Jackie Baillie.
Where we have decided that we have completed the evidence on individual MSPs, the report's findings on them should be made publicly available later today. Is everybody happy with that?
Yes.
We will move on to Henry McLeish MSP. Does anybody want to comment?
I have read the report very carefully; it is clear that Henry McLeish acted altogether appropriately with regard to the Loch Lomond shore project. The event was the launch of a major project which a minister with responsibility for tourism would be expected to attend. His conduct was in this case altogether appropriate.
So it is the same as in the first case.
I move that the committee has no further interest in allegations made about Mr McLeish. As in the case of Jackie Baillie, we should not proceed. We are satisfied that he has behaved at all times in relation to this project in the way in which we would expect of ministers.
Is everyone agreed?
Yes.
We will move on to Kenny MacAskill. Does anyone want to comment?
Mr MacAskill has said that he has not spoken to Kevin Reid inappropriately. I think that the committee will accept that.
Indeed. Is that agreed?
Yes.
We will move on to matters relating to Jack McConnell. Does anyone want to comment?
There are a number of issues that the committee may wish to consider further, particularly given press speculation this morning and at the weekend. I therefore move that we invite Jack McConnell to be questioned by members of this committee. The issues that we would like to discuss surround the invitation by Beattie Media to the finance director of the year awards dinner next February and whether that meeting was dealt with appropriately by him and his staff.
Are there any other points?
On the matter of Jack McConnell's diaries, I, like Karen, think that we need to ask Mr McConnell to come before us to clarify some of the points that are made in the report. We also need to ask Christina Marshall, Jack's constituency secretary, to come before the committee. We can then present points about the diaries, notebooks, the official invitation, and contacts with Beattie Media. Mr McConnell is on record as saying that he wants to come to the committee and to co-operate fully with it.
We have a proposal that Christina Marshall and Jack McConnell should be invited. Is everyone agreed on that?
The report that we received on the written information that we asked to be examined in respect of Jack McConnell should not be published until after the minister and Christina Marshall have appeared before us.
If I understand members correctly, what we are saying is that we have finished taking evidence on Jackie Baillie, Henry McLeish and Kenny MacAskill, and that all the evidence that is available to us should be published in a report. However, because we are still investigating the allegations that have been made against Jack McConnell, that evidence should be published not at this time, but after we have concluded our inquiries. Is that correct?
It is in everybody's interests that we try to conclude our investigation as quickly as possible. We should, therefore, hear the minister on the earliest possible date.
I am moving on to that now. We are scheduled to meet on the morning of Wednesday 27 October. I propose that the clerks issue invitations to Christina Marshall and Jack McConnell to come before the committee then, so that we can question them further on the evidence. We should try to move quickly, but also comprehensively. We will, of course, take things as they come—it all depends on whether Christina Marshall and Jack McConnell are available on 27 October. Is everybody happy with that?
Before we move on, I wanted to put a question on annex 1 to Mr Duncan.
I was about to say to members that although we have all read the report, we have an opportunity to question Malcolm on any point. Would you like to start, Tricia?
Malcolm, in annex 1, paragraph 4, you say that you have examined Alex Barr's contacts book and mention that there are three telephone numbers for Mr McConnell, none of which is an Edinburgh number or a Scottish Parliament number. Could you tell me, therefore, what the numbers are? Are they in fact Mr McConnell's numbers?
One number is that of Mr McConnell's constituency office in Wishaw and one is a Stirling/Bridge of Allan number which, I believe, is his home number. The third number is a mobile phone number, which may be personal. However, I have not followed that up.
Thank you.
Are there any other questions that members would like to ask Malcolm, or is everybody happy with the report?
The final sentence of annex 1, point 7, reads:
That is the understanding I received from Mr Barr when I asked him which number he had rung.
Are there any other questions for Malcolm Duncan?
Our questioning of both witnesses should concentrate on the invitation that is mentioned in the transcript from The Observer and on how it was issued. We should be very specific about that.
There are diaries, notebooks, official invitations and records of contact with Beattie Media. Do members want us to take a specific line of questioning or one that is more generalised?
In the case of Mr McConnell, the central allegation is that Beattie Media had undue influence over him, so we need also to explore the contacts that Mr McConnell has had with officials of Beattie Media. We have heard from the representatives of Beattie Media and The Observer; it is only right and proper that we give Mr McConnell the opportunity to tell the committee about the extent and the level of the contacts that he has had with Beattie Media.
That would be only fair. The reason I am labouring the point is that we have to give the witnesses notice of what we want to ask them.
It might be helpful for us to ask a little about the standard procedures that are followed.
In relation to Mr McConnell's member of staff—Christina Marshall—the only interest that this committee has is with regard to the invitation that was extended to Mr McConnell. We need to be focused, because the committee's primary interest is in members of the Scottish Parliament. More general questioning of Mr McConnell would be appropriate, but the questioning of other members of staff should be quite specific.
That point is well made. With Christina Marshall we will focus specifically on the invitation incident, but will take a wider approach with Jack McConnell.
Yes.
I want to emphasise that once we have completed the gathering of evidence, the written material that is relevant to Mr McConnell will be made available to the public.
Next
Correspondence