Standards Committee, 29 Sep 1999

Meeting date: Wednesday, September 29, 1999

Official Report 111KB pdf

---

Lobbying

We now come to item 2.

Over recent days, there has been much speculation in the press about the activities of political lobbyists. In my capacity as convener of this committee, I have said that I would regard allegations of improper influence over the actions of any member as a very serious matter.

However, I wish to make it clear that no formal complaint has been made to me or this committee about the involvement of any MSP in such activities.

Transcripts from The Observer newspaper were delivered to the committee clerk at 9.25 this morning. I have been informed that they were also e-mailed to members. The transcripts will be viewed by members of the committee.

I would like to point out, for the record, that this committee is concerned with the conduct of members in relation to their parliamentary duties. The rules governing members' conduct are set out in the Scotland Act 1998 (Transitory and Transitional Provisions) (Members' Interests) Order 1999 and will be amplified in the code of conduct that this committee is presently drafting.

I would also like to make clear that if any relevant allegations are made, and if they are substantiated in any way, this committee will ensure that a thorough and prompt investigation is carried out. The committee has already agreed that a high priority for us will be to consider the issue of lobbying in the context of the Scottish Parliament. We will now start that process.

I confirm that first thing this morning I received from The Observer a transcript of the interview that it conducted, as did other members. Convener, when were you first aware that allegations about members of the Scottish Parliament were to be published in The Observer last Sunday?

I spoke to you specifically about that at our briefing yesterday. You should consult the clerk at the end of the meeting to refresh your memory.

Although we had an informal meeting yesterday, there are some aspects of the matter that it would be right and proper to discuss at today's meeting. I repeat the question: when were you first aware, convener, that details of the allegations made in The Observer would be published?

It should come as no surprise to you to hear—I told you this yesterday and said that you could confirm it—that I was informed of the matter on Thursday. I want now to move on.

With respect, these issues are of relevance to the Standards Committee and to the people who believe that the Standards Committee has a responsibility to the Parliament. It is germane to establish who knew about the allegations and when, so that we can move on today to consider how the issues can best be dealt with.

Thank you, Tricia, for that comment. The transcripts have been handed to us. I do not think that it would serve any purpose to comment on them until all of us have had a chance to read through them together. You are on record at the past two Standards Committee meetings as having criticised my openness and accessibility. It is important now that we move on. No purpose is served by remaining on this point. I want to return to our agenda.

Has a letter of complaint been submitted to the committee with the transcript? If so, it would not be unreasonable to have an adjournment to consider it. If a formal complaint has been put before the committee, we should know that. I have received no copy of any formal letter of complaint from The Observer.

I asked at the informal meeting yesterday whether we could delay the start of this meeting. The committee decided that it wanted to press ahead at 9.30. However, I will take advice from the clerks.

I have been informed that a covering letter was received at 9.25, but I have not seen it and so I do not know what it says.

I have two points. First, it would not be unreasonable for us to adjourn briefly to consider a copy of the letter. Secondly, I am passing round copies of an article that appeared in The Express on Monday, as I do not want to quote it without giving members copies. In the third paragraph, the article quotes a statement that was put out on behalf of the First Minister, who said:

"The First Minister does not believe there has been any breach of the Ministerial Code. But he strongly supports the proposal that the standards committee should investigate any allegations made and should consider whether there is a need for further regulations in the light of such reports."

In view of that call from the First Minister, it seems that we should have sight of a copy of the letter as soon as possible.

I am happy to adjourn if members so wish. Perhaps members could indicate whether that is the case.

I second that.

From what you said, convener, I am not clear whether we have received a letter of complaint or not. Has a specific complaint been made, which the Standards Committee has been asked to consider?

As I said in my statement, the terms of which were agreed at yesterday's meeting, I have not to date received a complaint from anyone.

There are two important points to make. First, the procedures adopted by the newspaper in gathering its story—and all I have seen is the story that was written—seem to involve, in the paper's terms, subterfuge; in my terms, deception. The practices are not dissimilar from those of a thief—impersonating somebody to further an action. It is difficult to see how what The Observer did could comply with a standard code for journalism, if one existed that operated in the same way as the code in the United States.

Even more serious is the fact that, as members of a fledgling Parliament, all of us are concerned that we should be trying to construct a Parliament that abides by appropriate standards of which people in Scotland can be proud. We are faced with an organisation—a newspaper—that has delivered to us, at 25 minutes past 9, information that it has apparently held for a period, and you cannot tell us whether there is a formal complaint attached to that. The procedures that we want to construct and have in operation are not being served by that kind of action by the newspaper. The way in which it seems to have operated in constructing this story—and, more important, the way we are being asked to respond to its actions—is inappropriate.

If an official complaint that we should deal with is being made, it is incumbent on us to deal with it properly. Through the action of the newspaper, we are being placed in a position in which we cannot deal with this matter properly. I would be quite happy if committee members wanted to adjourn, to decide whether there is a complaint that we should deal with and to consider how we might deal with it. I would not be happy to consider a matter that I have had no opportunity to examine prior to its discussion.

We are in a difficult position because a newspaper is trying to use the Parliament in an inappropriate way. I resent that strongly. The committee should indicate its resentment of the way in which that newspaper is behaving.

I understand where Des is coming from on this issue. However, as James has pointed out, the First Minister has called for us to investigate this matter and I understand that we have received other letters from people who are involved. It would be remiss of us not to consider this matter today. We must do so, given the sensitivity of the matter.

I agree. According to the convention that we have adopted, we must move into private session if any named MSPs are to the fore. We do not know what is in here, and I suggest that—if the committee agrees—we move into private session for a few minutes, so that we can investigate this.

I am not aware of any correspondence from the First Minister. Lord James has provided us with a newspaper article. By your account, convener, we have received a letter at 25 minutes past 9, together with some linked information. That is the position that we are in. Is that correct?

That is correct. In the course of these activities, I have only ever received one letter from an MSP, to which the committee responded yesterday. That is all that I have received, apart from this package that the clerk received at 9.25 this morning.

I am grateful to Lord James for drawing our attention to the First Minister's statement in the newspaper. The convener has also confirmed that we received a letter from one of the people who were named in The Observer. That person has written to request that the Standards Committee investigate the matter. It would be remiss of the committee not to accept his urgings that we investigate the allegations and the transcripts that we have before us.

I want to make one thing absolutely clear: I feel that we are duty bound to look into, and get to the bottom of, any complaint that we receive. The question remains: have we received a complaint? That is why I am asking the committee whether we can move into private session. According to the convention that we have adopted, if anything in here names a particular MSP we must move into private session. I think that it is now appropriate to do so.

Is it a matter of fact that a letter has been delivered this morning?

I am advised that the clerk received the transcripts and a covering letter.

If that letter mentions a particular individual, or individuals, the case for moving into private session is advanced. I suggest that it would not be unreasonable for us to adjourn for a short time, to consider the contents of that letter.

I would be happy to do that.

Question, That the meeting be now adjourned, put and agreed to.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

Meeting adjourned at 09:54.

On resuming—

Welcome back to the full open session of the meeting. I remind everybody of our reason for our going into private session. It is a convention of the Standards Committee that when any individual MSP is named in any information that comes before us, we discuss the matter in private.

We are still discussing item 2. We have decided to meet on Tuesday in private for careful consideration of the matters that have been placed before us, with a view to deciding on the terms of an investigation.

That concludes our discussion of item 2. We now move to item 3.