Standards Committee, 29 Jun 2004
Meeting date: Tuesday, June 29, 2004
Official Report
163KB pdf
Complaint
We move to item 3. I will read a statement with regard to—[Interruption.] Order. Any member of the public who interrupts the meeting will be removed. That is not in order. Members of the public are entitled to attend parliamentary meetings but not to speak at them.
Our final item of business is to announce our decision on a complaint against Kenny MacAskill and Tricia Marwick, which was raised by five members of the public who are resident in the Blairingone and Saline area.
The Scottish parliamentary standards commissioner has completed his investigation into the complaint and his report, and that of the committee, will be published immediately after this meeting. The commissioner has conducted a thorough investigation and produced a detailed report on what has undoubtedly been a difficult and sensitive case. The committee wishes to convey its thanks to the commissioner.
The complaint concerns the retention by Mr MacAskill and Tricia Marwick of a file that contained health questionnaire returns and other material relating to an inquiry into the dumping of organic waste in Blairingone and Saline that Dorothy-Grace Elder MSP was undertaking as a reporter for the Public Petitions Committee in the first parliamentary session.
We wish to express our great sympathy for those members of the public who, through no fault of their own, became caught up in a dispute between three MSPs. We regret the consequent distress that was caused to them.
The Standards Committee notes that, with the exception of the approach by the Presiding Officer to the members concerned, the conduct that was complained of has already been the subject of previous investigations by the acting standards commissioner and the committee in the context of a separate provision in the code. In that instance, the conclusion was that the complaint should not be upheld.
In investigating the current complaint in the context of different provisions of the code, the standards commissioner came to the conclusion that, in his judgment, there were three breaches of the code.
The key factor in the committee's decision to dismiss the earlier complaint was the circumstances in which the MSPs found themselves. In our report, which was published in October last year, the committee stated:
"Kenny MacAskill's and Tricia Marwick's responses to the requests for the return of the file appear to have been influenced by various factors: the use of their researcher without their permission, the circumstances surrounding the dismissal of that researcher, the ongoing employment dispute with that researcher and their own conclusions about the importance of the documents to Dorothy-Grace Elder's work on behalf of the Public Petitions Committee and the ownership of the documents."
The committee found it a matter of "considerable regret" that all three MSPs concerned had been unable to seek constructive engagement or to find a resolution to their dispute. However, we concluded that the circumstances had been less than conducive to compromise.
We do not condone the conduct of the members who are the subject of the complaint and we reiterate that we view their actions as having been regrettable and disappointing. Their obduracy in dealing with the matter was most unfortunate and we would not expect to see it being repeated. Nevertheless, we continue to judge that the members' conduct falls short of a breach of the code, because of the particular circumstances of the case. We hold to our previous judgment that the MSPs' conduct was influenced by a number of factors, which I listed a few moments ago. The committee believes that, when the case is considered, those factors should be weighed in the balance.
In their written representations to the committee about the current complaint, Kenny MacAskill and Tricia Marwick have recognised that
"this whole affair has been regrettable and has been detrimental to all parties"
and that
"there are matters that we could have, and perhaps should have dealt with differently".
We welcome that statement, even though it is belated. We also recognise that this is the culmination of a long-running issue that has been detrimental to all the people involved.
The committee agrees unanimously that the complaint should not be upheld.
Meeting closed at 11:34.