Don Foster MP reprimanded by Commons Standards and Privileges Committee Report of 21 May 2009

bath | media and culture | news report Sunday June 28, 2009 10:12 by Robert

Unauthorised disclosure of confidential committee papers by Don Fosters Bath constituency office to journalists

Unauthorised Disclosure of Heads of Report from the Culture, Media and Sport Committee - Standards and Privileges Committee

Conclusions and recommendations
________________________________________

Seriousness of this case

38. The Committee on Culture, Media and Sport referred the leak of 25 February to us on the basis that it constituted a serious interference with the work of the Committee. The Liaison Committee accepted that this was the case, and so do we. As we have commented in a recent Report,

The unauthorised disclosure of a draft Report or of advice to a select committee not only betrays confidence but can damage trust between Members, and between Members and those who work for or with them. It also undermines the effectiveness of a committee's work. Leaking is a reprehensible act and in any case where this Committee is able to discover the source of a leak it will be prepared to recommend appropriately severe sanctions.

Mr Don Foster MP

58. Mr Don Foster is Ms Aitken's employer. In that capacity, he has a duty of care towards her. This duty includes ensuring that his staff are aware of the rules and conventions of Parliament. Mr Foster told us that he had never been a member of a select committee.[64] His staff had never asked him for guidance on how to handle select committee papers; and he had never thought it necessary to give them such advice.[65] He had once received a CMSC briefing paper for the Committee's inquiry into libel tourism, but he was unaware that between November 2008 and February 2009, such papers were being sent to his office as a matter of routine.[66]

59. We conclude that Mr Don Foster MP was remiss in not ensuring that his staff were properly briefed on their duty of confidentiality in relation to select committee papers.

General conclusion

86. We are acutely aware that, at a time when the British public is rightly concerned about the use, misuse and abuse by Members of Parliament of their allowances, the question of who leaked a draft of a document that, when it appeared, created scant public interest, may seem of little importance. We are no less aware of the view many have that the House of Commons has sought unsuccessfully to prevent the publication of details of Members' claims, and that Parliament should in general be more transparent. We have to recognise that no-one outside Parliament has complained about the leaking of the draft Heads of Report of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee on the BBC's commercial operations. It is quite possible that no-one outside Parliament cares.

87. It would be a mistake, however, to see attempts to maintain the confidentiality of papers associated with a select committee inquiry as being linked to the wider debate on freedom of information. In our view, which we believe is widely shared outside Parliament, select committees do a valuable job, holding the executive and public corporations such as the BBC to account and making important recommendations for change and reform, based on the evidence they hear. The iterative process that produces these recommendations relies on a degree of trust and cooperation between Members of Parliament from different parties that is all too easily undermined.

88. Leaks are one way in which trust is undermined. Any leak of information that has been shared in confidence is a breach of trust and, while the consequences of a single breach may be minor, the compound effect of a series of leaks can be highly corrosive. Leaks also let the executive off the hook, by giving them early warning of a committee's conclusions. We will continue to discharge the duty that the House has placed upon us, of investigating cases where a select committee finds that a leak has seriously interfered with its work and recommending severe sanctions where appropriate, just as we will pursue with vigour—and will be ready to recommend appropriately severe sanctions in—standards cases involving the conduct of Members.