Report on Written Evidence
I assume that everyone has had the opportunity to read and digest the extra information that was provided by Mr Jack McConnell and Christina Marshall. Are there any comments on the evidence that has been presented?
From the material that has been presented to me by the special adviser and others, and from the evidence that I have heard over the past 24 days, I conclude that there is no evidence that Jack McConnell acted improperly.
That 24-day period has been extremely difficult for the Standards Committee, because it has heard conflicting evidence on oath from, I suspect, at least one of the people who gave us evidence. There is a contradiction at the heart of the evidence, and it centres on the diary entry and the conversation between Christina Marshall and Alex Barr. Christina Marshall said that there is a difference in recollection: it is my view that there is a difference in fact.
It is not the role of the committee to decide who, between Christina Marshall and Alex Barr, was not telling the truth. The committee's role is to investigate the behaviour of MSPs, and we are doing that by investigating the behaviour of Jack McConnell. We have to make a judgment on the evidence that is before us—not the evidence that people say should have been presented to us and was not, but on the evidence that has come to us. I repeat: from the evidence that we have received, I conclude that there is no evidence that Jack McConnell acted improperly.
I agree with Tricia. On the basis of the oral and written evidence that has been presented to us and the material in the report from the special adviser, there has been no impropriety. Indeed, it is appropriate for a minister to have a single, central authoritative diary for the placement of any engagements.
The one concern that I had during the questioning this week was about why the diary entry had been deleted so rapidly. Mr McConnell answered that very satisfactorily—from the rest of the diary, it was clear that it was because he was taking no engagements at that particular time of year.
I also have some slight concerns about the evidence of Alex Barr and Christina Marshall. Alex Barr reported that Christina Marshall had told him that he should consider the diary appointment confirmed unless he heard back from her. That was completely denied by Miss Marshall, so their recollections are clearly at odds. However, there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that, on the evidence that we have received, there has been no impropriety by Jack McConnell as an MSP.
I broadly concur with Tricia Marwick. There are a number of unsatisfactory loose ends in the evidence, which the committee does not have the resources to deal with in the way that a court of law might.
We have evidence about the operation of the constituency office and the ministerial office. On the basis of the evidence that we have heard, the conclusion has to be that there was no impropriety on the part of the MSP, which is our essential concern. We are not equipped to resolve the issue of two people's different accounts of a telephone conversation. We have to go with the evidence before us and ask whether it points clearly to impropriety. I do not think that we could come to that conclusion, so I am very much of the same view as Tricia Marwick.
I supported this investigation and I note the new evidence.
Our remit was to consider whether there was evidence of a breach of any code by an MSP. I believe, from the information before us, that there is no evidence of a breach of any code by any MSP, including Jack McConnell. I conclude that there is no evidence of impropriety.
There is a discrepancy of evidence. For a confirmed invitation, there is normally a need for a letter of invitation and an acceptance. There is neither a letter nor an acceptance. There is a discrepancy of evidence over the telephone call. That was put to Christina Marshall by the convener. Mr Barr said that
"in the conversation I had with Christina she told me that I should consider it confirmed unless I heard back from her, which I did not."—[Official Report, Standards Committee, 8 October 1999; c 125.]
She said:
"My version is different from Mr Barr's: I can confirm that. I have given you my recollection of the conversation with Mr Barr. I never on any occasion gave him any indication that Mr McConnell would attend the event."—[Official Report, Standards Committee, 27 October 1999; c 193.]
There is no evidence, of any description, that the date was confirmed by Jack McConnell. I believe that there is no evidence of impropriety against him.
I express thanks to Malcolm Duncan for the excellence of his report to us, which made our task a lot easier and was a great help.
I concur with my colleagues that, quite clearly, we do not have evidence of any impropriety on the part of Mr McConnell. I have a lingering concern about the conflicting testimony. I do not think that it is just a matter of a difference in recollections. I think that there was a clear difference in the facts expressed by those two individuals.
In the longer term, the committee will no doubt have to investigate a few other difficult matters. A message must be sent out, loud and clear, that if individuals do not take the oath seriously, implications follow from that.
I agree with the views expressed by my colleagues, in particular by Tricia. On the basis of the evidence that I have before me, there is no evidence of Jack McConnell having acted improperly in relation to the codes under which we have been conducting the investigation.
That ends the first part of agenda item 1.