Standards Committee, 26 Sep 2001

Meeting date: Wednesday, September 26, 2001

Official Report 164KB pdf

---

Confidentiality

We now move to the substantial business of the meeting and our consideration of a short paper on confidentiality. The paper proposes that on receipt of a complaint concerning an alleged leak that does not name a member, the Standards Committee should invite the views of the committee concerned before deciding whether to exercise its discretion to refer the complaint for investigation by the adviser.

I throw the discussion open to members.

I will start the ball rolling. As I understand it, the proposed committee bill on a standards commissioner should enable the Standards Committee to investigate complaints, if necessary. The Standards Committee should have the discretion to conduct investigations if it believes that it is necessary to do so.

We are considering the paper on confidentiality, Lord James, rather than the proposed bill itself. What do members think about the procedure that is proposed in the paper?

For the reasons that I outlined at our previous meeting, conveners have a role to play in the investigation of leaks. All MSPs have a responsibility to do whatever they can to stamp out the practice. The paper is well thought out and welcome, but we are proposing to consider a report in October that sets out the Standards Committee's views on confidentiality. Before we issue that report, we should again attempt to get the conveners on board. Before we produce a report that floats the idea of involving conveners, I would like their agreement to our proposal.

Obviously, the convener was at the meeting of the conveners liaison group. My understanding from soundings that I have taken is that there was—shall we say—hostility to the idea. I suspect that getting the conveners on board may be a tricky road for us to go down. I was interested to read paragraph 5 of the paper, which states:

"One Convener suggested that in deciding whether or not to investigate a ‘leak' the Standards Committee should take a view on the seriousness of the leak and whether an investigation would be worthwhile."

Perhaps that could be the hook to hang this on. We could send the matter back to the committee concerned, as complaints do not always come from the committee; they often come from an individual member or a member of the public. The complaint might come from the convener, but it rarely comes from the committee. We could say that we are returning a complaint to the committee for comment on the seriousness of the leak. Sometimes a leak may be unhelpful to one member's position or their comments and statements at a specific meeting may be leaked, but it may not be such a serious leak as some of the ones that we have considered, which have been fairly serious.

I agree with what my colleagues have said. Conveners should be expected at least to express a view.

The conveners were reluctant for the onus to be put on them. The onus—even with this report—remains with this committee. We are flagging up to the conveners that lodging a complaint with the Standards Committee does not automatically mean that the complaint will immediately be investigated. As has been mentioned, it is important that we go back to the committee concerned to get its views on the seriousness or otherwise of a leak.

Are we happy with that?

I am content with that.

Can I clarify that we have agreed to the conclusion in paragraph 10?

That is correct.

Does Tricia Marwick think that we should have another stab at this before we produce a draft report?

No.

We will get the clerks to produce a draft report for us.

I am content with the method outlined by Patricia Ferguson and Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.

I would like to add a point. We are exercising our discretion by taking on board leaks when the complaint does not name an individual. That point can also be made to the committees. We are looking for their guidance before we exercise our discretion, because it is not automatic that we should carry out such an investigation.

Patricia Ferguson is right. Much of this is to do with perception. The perception among other conveners is that as soon as a complaint is lodged it goes straight to the Standards Committee and will be investigated. All that the draft report will do is emphasise to committees that we will use our discretion, but we would like conveners' input first.

Are we happy with that?

Members indicated agreement.