Committee News Release
CSTAN 02/2003
25 June 2003
STANDARDS COMMITTEE TO CONDUCT ITS OWN INQUIRY
The Standards Committee has today decided that it wishes to conduct its own investigation and hear further evidence in relation to a complaint made against Kenny McAskill MSP and Tricia Marwick MSP.
At today’s meeting, the Committee considered three options on how to proceed with this issue:
- to agree with the Standards Commissioner’s findings in fact and conclusion;
- to refer the complaint back to the Standards Commissioner for further investigation or clarification; or
- to conduct its own investigation into the complaint.
It has chosen the third option: to conduct its own investigation into the complaint.
The text of Ken Macintosh’s opening remarks as deputy Convener is as follows:
“In February 2003, the complainer, Dorothy-Grace Elder alleged that Kenny MacAskill and Tricia Marwick acted in breach of paragraph 9.2.5 of the Code of Conduct by retaining a file. The file is said to have contained questionnaire returns relating to an inquiry which she was undertaking as a Reporter for the Public Petitions Committee in the last Parliamentary session. Paragraph 9.2.5 of the Code states that:
Members must treat other MSPs and the staff of other MSPs with courtesy and respect.
In her letter setting out the complaint, Dorothy-Grace Elder alleged that the refusal of the Members to return the material to her meant that she ‘could not possibly do the work’ on behalf of the Public Petitions Committee. The complaint letter indicated that the file was in the desk of a researcher employed by Kenny MacAskill and Tricia Marwick who had been dismissed earlier in the month. Dorothy-Grace Elder indicated that the Members refused to hand over the material despite requests from the Convener and Clerk of the Public Petitions Committee and the Deputy Presiding Officer.
The acting Standards Commissioner carried out an investigation into the complaint. The Commissioner found that Dorothy-Grace Elder placed the work in the hands of the researcher employed by Kenny MacAskill and Tricia Marwick and that the material was retained by the Members concerned as possible evidence in connection with a possible employment dispute. The Commissioner found that retention of the documentation which comprised photocopies did not prevent Dorothy-Grace Elder from carrying out her work on behalf of the Petitions Committee.
The Commissioner concluded that retention of the documentation did not amount to a discourtesy or disrespect towards another Member and that there was not a breach of paragraph 9.2.5 of the Code of Conduct.”
Having considered the Acting Scottish Parliamentary Standards Commissioner’s report and hearing representations from Kenny MacAskill MSP and Tricia Marwick MSP, the Deputy Convener made the following statement:
“We have unanimously agreed as a Committee for me as Deputy Convener to make the following statement.
Having deliberated at length on the matter, the Standards Committee has further questions that it wishes to ask and issues that it wishes to clarify. For example, it is still unclear to the committee how necessary the papers in the possession of Tricia Marwick and Kenny MacAskill were to the work of Dorothy-Grace Elder on behalf of the Public Petitions Committee. We are also unclear as to why Tricia Marwick and Kenny MacAskill did not respond to the approaches that were made by the then Convenor of the Public Petitions Committee and others for the return of the papers.
There is therefore a need for the committee to hear further evidence and for us to conduct our own investigation. The clerks will write to the witnesses from whom we wish to hear with an outline of areas of questioning.
We do not see ourselves operating in this manner in response to every complaint. Our decision to do so in this case does not imply that we will ultimately reject the acting Standards Commissioner’s findings, nor does it imply that we are in any way unhappy with the work of the acting Standards Commissioner.
The next meeting will not be until after the summer recess. Members will be notified of the date of that meeting as soon as possible.”
Background Notes
Four-stage investigative process
There is a four stage investigative process for handling complaints:
- Stage 1: Initial consideration or 'sift' of complaints by Standards Commissioner
- Stage 2: If a complaint appears to have foundation, the Commissioner conducts a full investigation into the complaint in private and independently of the Committee. At the conclusion of his or her investigation, the Commissioner submits a full report to the Standards Committee.
- Stage 3: Standards Committee's consideration of the Commissioner's report. The MSP who is the subject of the complaint has the right to appear before the Committee at this stage. Any oral evidence taken by the Committee at this stage will be heard in public session. After considering the Commissioner's report and any other evidence, the Committee makes its decision in public session on whether the Member has breached the Code of Conduct and if so, whether it wishes to recommend the imposition of sanctions. The Committee's report and the Commissioner's findings are then published.
- Stage 4: The Standards Committee's recommendation for
the imposition of sanctions is the subject of a debate and vote by
the full Parliament.
For further information, the media contact is:
Eric MacLeod: 0131 348 5389
email: eric.macleod@scottish.parliament.uk
For public information enquiries, contact: 0131 34 85000
For general enquiries, contact: 0845 278 1999 (local
call rate)
email: sp.info@scottish.parliament.uk
Visit our website at: www.scottish.parliament.uk