Appendix 3: Letter to the Clerk of the
Committee from Mr Malcolm Bruce,
3 December 2007
As I have already given my comments to the Commissioner,
I will confine myself to a number of specific points.
I wish to stress that for the six years that the
Holyrood and Westminster constituency boundaries were co-terminus
it was my practice to issue a combined annual report with the
MSP. My report appeared on one side of an A3 sheet and the MSP's
appeared on the other.
This was common practice in a number of constituencies
and among other parties as well. I am not aware of any complaint
being generated.
For that reason I could see no reason why I should
not continue to highlight the fact that I worked with the Gordon
MSP on a variety of issues relevant to the constituency and both
Parliaments.
Transport issues are the responsibility of both Westminster
and Holyrood especially concerning railways which are an important
part of what I am working on. The photograph was designed to show
my representations to the then Transport Minister on the specific
issue of a station at Kintore.
I did not see this as promoting the Liberal Democrats
any more than my mentions of Joan Ruddock or the Prime Minister
were promoting the Labour Party.
Perhaps most important of all is the timing of
publication around election time. I carefully checked before publication
that there was no constraint on distributing reports, paid for
out of IEP, around an election time. I
could therefore see no reason to abandon the report, which I would
have had to do if I had given up the Royal Mail household distribution
slot.
In spite of the rule regarding elections it seems
my report is being judged because of its proximity to elections.
The implication, given both the DFA and the Commissioner agree
that it is finely balanced, is that the complaint may not have
been upheld if the timing had been different.
In addition the commissioner refers to recent
guidance issued under the Communications Allowance. My report
predates this and was paid for under the IEP and published prior
to the new guidance being issued. It seems therefore it is being
judged retrospectively under the new rules for the CA rather than
those existing at the time under IEP.
I very much welcome the guidance for the future,
wish to assure the committee that I did not for a minute believe
I was breaching any rules or guidelines and would not have published
had I thought I was.
I have sought DFA approval for all publications I
have since issued under IEP or CA and would in future do so and
apply unconditionally with any guidance given.
I am proud of my record of upholding the standards
of the House over nearly 25 years as a member, and give the committee
my personal assurance of my continued determination to do so.
I hope that in the light of my further submission
above the committee will be prepared to acknowledge that the very
fact that the complaint has been scrupulously investigated has
been a salutary experience.
Publishing a critical report of a member is a serious
step for the committee to take. No breach was intended and given
that the change in the guidelines has been issued since my report
was published I hope the committee will decide not to uphold the
complaint.
The committee can be fully confident that I will
continue to follow guidelines meticulously to avoid any possible
justification of future complaint.
| 
