Committee on the Scottish Government Handling of Harassment Complaints

Meeting date: Wednesday, February 20, 2019

Official Report 464KB pdf

---

Timing of Inquiry

We move to agenda item 5, which is consideration of the timing of the inquiry. The committee has been established to undertake a specific piece of work. It is worth putting on the record our full remit, which is

“to consider and report on the actions of the First Minister, Scottish Government officials and special advisers in dealing with complaints about Alex Salmond, former First Minister, considered under the Scottish Government’s ‘Handling of harassment complaints involving current or former ministers’ procedure and actions in relation to the Scottish Ministerial Code.”

Everybody has read the remit and the papers that have been put forward on the timing of the inquiry. The Parliamentary Bureau agreed that the inquiry should not impede, interfere with or replicate on-going investigations, nor should it prejudice any subsequent legal proceedings. We all know that court proceedings are now active, and the Parliament’s sub judice rule now applies.

I invite comments, discussion and questions from committee members.

I understand the collective will of the committee and the committee’s understanding of the rules around sub judice that necessitate our perhaps suspending our formal hearings in this inquiry until the conclusion of legal proceedings.

However, there are aspects of this case that are not sub judice, which pertain to the complaints procedure that predated the current procedure. It might be helpful for us to receive formal or written briefings on how the procedure was meant to operate in best practice, just so that we can familiarise ourselves with the landscape. Although I would support a suspension of formal hearings, we could be furnished with some background reading or briefing that would allow us that understanding of the landscape, without prejudicing any proceedings.

I wonder whether it is possible for the committee to write to the Scottish Government and ask for timings with regard to the other investigations that we are waiting to learn more about—that is, the inquiry in relation to the ministerial code self-referral and the internal review—so that we are in a better position to understand when they might be complete.

There is a danger that this committee might be suspended until sub judice rules are looked at. I agree with Alex Cole-Hamilton that there is useful information that can be gathered just now that will help our investigation and our inquiry, when we take it up formally. It is all about complaints, to an extent; for example, looking back at how complaints have been handled since the inception of the Parliament would provide useful background information and perhaps more detail that we can hammer out in private. For the record, I do not think that we need to stand still just now, because there is useful work that can be done that will aid our inquiry in the longer term.

On a slightly different point, which relates to timing, I have no issue at all with the substantial point about delaying until proceedings have finished, but I wonder whether there is a mechanism whereby either formally or informally the committee might note where progress stands or be convened very briefly—every three months, say—so that we are up to date and so that we do not postpone meetings indefinitely. That is simply an observation that I wanted to make.

12:45  

Following on from Mr Cameron’s point, I would certainly be sympathetic to the committee not postponing indefinitely and coming together periodically. I would also be interested in advice on two further points.

Like most MSPs, I am perfectly aware of the sub judice rules that are in our standing orders. I am well aware of the Presiding Officer’s recent statement in Parliament and I am also aware of the Parliamentary Bureau’s recommendation that the inquiry should not begin until legal proceedings have concluded. However, it is important for the committee to receive its own advice on that point. As a non-lawyer, I understand that the sub judice rules might inhibit us from doing aspects of the work that we will definitely want to do for our inquiry, but I would appreciate advice on that.

On Mr Cole-Hamilton’s point, we should consider whether sensible background work could be done, for our learning, while the legal proceedings progress. That might save time in the future.

I agree that the committee can do nothing that would run the risk of interfering with what goes on in court—that is for the sake of the defendant and the prosecution—so I oppose our doing anything formal now. However, there is an opportunity for informal evidence gathering that would pave the way for future committee meetings, so we should meet from time to time while the legal proceedings continue.

We should not wait for the outcome of the Scottish Government’s review or for the outcome of the First Minister’s self-referral under the Scottish ministerial code. Parliament has given the committee a remit and we can work out the logistics of things happening at the same time. We should delay for no reason other than live legal proceedings.

I am a bit concerned by the prospect of taking informal evidence, which might contravene the sub judice rules. However, it is important to do anything that we can to make ourselves more aware of the background. If we can read stuff from the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee or about previous actions that might be relevant we should do that so that, when we convene after the legal proceedings have concluded, we are prepared and can hit the ground running.

Are Maureen Watt and Jackie Baillie on the same line of thought?

We are on the same page—perhaps I used different language from Maureen Watt, but we are in entirely the same place.

We must all be careful about the use of language, which is important.

On the same issue, I understand entirely Maureen Watt’s point, but I am anxious about our going off individually to do private study. I would prefer us to all have the same information and to be on the same page when we reconvene.

Everything that has been said reflects the thoughts that I have had. I suggest that we take on board all the points with our clerks and put them together. Margaret Mitchell and I will look at that and circulate to the committee a view on how to proceed that sets out what background information we can gather, what will be most useful for us and whether it would be worth while to set a regular timetable for coming together as a committee to review progress. Is that acceptable to everyone?

Members indicated agreement.

12:49 Meeting continued in private.  

13:20 Meeting continued in public.