STANDARDS COMMITTEE Friday 8 October 1999 (Morning) £5.00 Parliamentary copyright. Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body 1999. Applications for reproduction should be made in writing to the Copyright Unit, Her Majesty‘s Stationery Office, St Clements House, 2-16 Colegate, Norwich NR3 1BQ Fax 01603 723000, which is administering the copyright on behalf of the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body. Produced and published in Scotland on behalf of the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body by The Stationery Office Ltd. Her Majesty‘s Stationery Office is independent of and separate from the c ompany now trading as The Stationery Office Ltd, which is responsible for printing and publishing Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body publications. CONTENTS Friday 8 October 1999 Col. EVIDENCE...............................................................................................................................................97 DOCUMENTS ........................................................................................................................................ 168 STANDARDS COMMITTEE 7th Meeting CONVENER : *Mr Mike Rumbles (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD) COMMI TTEE MEMBERS : *Karen Gillon (Clydesdale) (Lab) *Lord James Douglas-Hamilton (Lothians) (Con) *Mr Adam Ingram (South of Scotland) (SNP) *Des McNulty (Clydebank and Milngavie) (Lab) *Dr Richard Simpson (Ochil) (Lab) *Tricia Marw ick (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP) *attended WITNESSES: Alex Barr (Beattie Media) Gordon Beattie (Beattie Media) Ben Laurance (The Observer) Dean Nelson (The Observer) Kevin Reid (Beattie Media) Rod McKenzie (Harper MacLeod, Solic itors) COMMI TTEE CLERKS: Bill Thomson Vanessa Glynn ASSISTANT CLERK: Alastair Goudie 97 8 OCTOBER 1999 98 Scottish Parliament James with Mr Reid; and Adam Ingram with Mr Beattie. Standards Committee I believe that some members have particular lines of questioning that they want to pursue with witnesses. I will ask them to let me know them. I Friday 8 October 1999 would also like members‘ comments on whether we should allow witnesses to make a statement (Morning) before we start to ask them questions. [THE CONVENER opened the meeting at 09:33] Des McNulty (Clydebank and Milngavie) (Lab): It would be appropriate to ask witnesses The Convener (Mr Mike Rumbles): Good whether they want to make a brief presentation. I morning. I welcome you all to this committee emphasise, however, that statements should be meeting and I would particularly like to welcome brief—certainly no more than five minutes. Richard Simpson to the committee. Members may The Convener: Are we all agreed? be aware that Patricia Ferguson has decided to stand aside from the committee for the time being, Members: Yes. to avoid any possible conflict of interest in The Convener: We have agreed, therefore, that connection with our current business. witnesses will be invited to give evidence one by I now invite Dr Richard Simpson to make a one. We reserve the right to ask any witness to declaration of interests. make additional comments, particularly in the light of evidence given by other witnesses. The order of Dr Richard Simpson (Ochil) (Lab): I have no appearance of witnesses will be: Mr Nelson, Mr interests to declare. Laurance, Mr Barr, Mr Reid and Mr Beattie. Evidence Dr Simpson: We may want witnesses to consider giving us further written evidence once The Convener: Our first agenda item is the we have finished questioning them. taking of evidence in relation to our inquiry into The Convener: That would be most allegations reported in The Observer newspaper. appropriate. Are there any other comments? If not, We have invited the following persons to attend I will move on. I should point out that when I and give evidence to the committee: Dean Nelson suggested that certain members take the lead on of The Observer, Ben Laurance of The Observer, questioning of witnesses, I did not mean that only Alex Barr of Beattie Media, Kevin Reid of Beattie those members would be able to ask questions. I Media and Gordon Beattie of Beattie Media. propose to allow a particular line of questioning to To clarify our procedure, I want to hear be chosen and to be pursued, but that does not members‘ views on whether we should invite prevent other members from coming in afterwards. witnesses to give evidence one by one or in some Please feel free to ask questions. other way, and whether the order of appearance of The lines of questioning will reflect the points witnesses should be as I have suggested. that members made in our earlier brief discussion. Lord James Douglas-Hamilton (Lothians) Members are free to seek information from (Con): It makes sense to call the witnesses one by witnesses on any matter that arises from today‘s one. One member should lead the eliciting of proceedings. I confirm that witnesses will be information from witnesses and other members allowed to make an opening statement, but that it can ask questions afterwards. should not, as Des suggested, be longer than five minutes. The Convener: Are we all agreed? Before we call the witnesses, I would like Members: Yes. members to outline the line of questioning that The Convener: Are we agreed on the order of they want to pursue, so that we are clear. Des, appearance? would you like to indicate the line of questioning that you want to pursue? Members: Yes. Des McNulty: Broadly speaking, I want to ask The Convener: One person will take the lead in Dean Nelson about when he got the information asking questions of particular witnesses, as Lord about the meeting between Ben Laurance and James has suggested. I propose that members Beattie Media and about the decisions that were lead questions to individual witnesses as follows: made by The Observer about publishing the story. Des McNulty will lead questioning of Mr Nelson; I want to know what assessments were made of Tricia Marwick will lead questioning of Mr the information that the paper had. I want to ask Laurance; Karen Gillon will lead with Mr Barr; Lord what contact Mr Nelson has had with people from 99 8 OCTOBER 1999 100 Beattie Media and about the information that has confer with and advise them. Advisers cannot been presented to us in terms of completion. address the committee directly, unless invited to do so by me. Witnesses should, therefore, indicate The Convener: Tricia, what line would you like to me if their adviser wishes to address the to take with Mr Laurance? committee—for example, on a matter of Tricia Marwick (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP): procedure. It is broadly similar to the questions to Dean I invite Mr Nelson to come forward. Good Nelson. What were the reasons for the meeting morning, Mr Nelson. with the staff of Beattie Media? What were the details of the meeting, and how did it come about? Dean Nelson (The Observer): Good morning. Did The Observer target Beattie Media, as The Convener: Thank you for coming. I opposed to any other public relations company appreciate your responding to our invitation. I operating in Scotland, for a particular reason? would like to remind you that you are required to The Convener: Karen, what is your line of give evidence under oath. We will administer the questioning to Mr Barr? oath first. I understand that you wish to take the oath, rather than to make an affirmation. Karen Gillon (Clydesdale) (Lab): What were the arrangements? Why did he attend? I would Dean Nelson: Absolutely. like details and substantiation of the claims that Dean Nelson took the oath. were made in the transcript regarding named politicians and staff. I would also like an The Convener: Mr Nelson, I believe that you explanation of the business methods that were would like to make an opening statement. Is that used and of the contacts programme that is correct? mentioned in the transcript. What is his attitude Dean Nelson: It is. towards regulation of lobbying activities, because that is mentioned in the transcript as well? First, I would like to say thank you to all the The Convener: Lord James, what is your line of members of the committee for inviting us here today and giving us an opportunity to present our questioning? evidence to you. I will now read out the statement. Dr Simpson: I am sorry, but is Karen Gillon‘s last question within our remit? The Observer‘s investigation into lobbyists began after we were contacted by concerned Karen Gillon: It relates particularly to the part of politicians. They had been offended by the transcript in which Mr Barr makes reference to approaches from lobbying companies, which had a code of conduct that is currently in place and to offered them employment that would involve using his belief that it is not adequate. their contacts on behalf of lobbyists‘ clients. The politicians to whom we spoke were concerned that The Convener: I think that that question would the lobbying industry posed a threat to the new be appropriate. Parliament. Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I want to ask At that time, there were rumours that Beattie questions arising out of what is recorded in the Media, the firm that claimed to have the industry‘s transcript and to follow those through. highest standards, had hired Kevin Reid, a Labour Mr Adam Ingram (South of Scotland) (SNP): party employee and the son of the Secretary of There are two or three matters that I want to State for Scotland, John Reid. That story discuss with Gordon Beattie: first, the activity of subsequently proved to be true. It had been Beattie Media, including the business methods suggested to us that Reid had no relevant involving contacts with politicians; secondly, the experience and had been hired only because of recruitment of staff from political parties; thirdly, his family connections. We decided to investigate the role of particular members of staff, including the firm, to test whether it really had such high former members named in the transcripts.