Chamber
Plenary, 08 Mar 2007
08 Mar 2007 · S2 · Plenary
Item of business
Complaint
Three minutes? Thank you, Presiding Officer.
I oppose the Standards and Public Appointments Committee motion for three reasons. First, I was denied natural justice in this process. Secondly, I did not disregard the Glasgow Airport Rail Link Bill Committee, as the standards commissioner and the Standards and Public Appointments Committee allege. Thirdly, the penalty that will be imposed, should members believe the charges, is disproportionate for such a breach.
In not being allowed to appear before the Standards and Public Appointments Committee to answer the complaint against me, I believe that I was denied the natural justice that this Parliament rightly insists that members of the public should expect. I could not answer in person any allegations or questions or correct any misunderstandings. Would members who are either members of trade unions or sponsored by trade unions accept it if people whom they represent were accused of a breach of their employment terms by their employer but had no opportunity to address any committee dealing with the incident? Is it not right to expect that person to be able to present their own defence or to have someone represent them?
Instead, the process was conducted in writing. When I submitted my written response, I fully expected to be called to a subsequent committee meeting. In respect of natural justice, the system and the decision are flawed and the motion should be rejected.
Secondly, I do not believe that I disregarded the Glasgow Airport Rail Link Bill Committee. It is clear from the convener of the Standards and Public Appointments Committee's speech, that people still completely misunderstand the term "embargo." I have said constantly in my defence that I believe that there was a misunderstanding or confusion in the Glasgow Airport Rail Link Bill Committee. I certainly do not recall the clerk saying that nothing should be circulated, whether with an embargo or not. In fact, the paper on the release of the report that was circulated to members—I have it here—suggested that the release, which was to be issued the next day, would be embargoed until 8 o'clock. An embargo means that a paper is in circulation, but cannot be used.
It was my belief that in issuing my separate release—which was subject to the same embargo—to explain why I had dissented from the committee's decision, I was doing nothing more than ensuring that the information would be in the public domain to allow people to understand why I had dissented. I would not be so daft as to break the publication of the committee's report, or to misinform the public or the media, by putting out a news release in my name. That just does not make sense.
If I—or the clerk or the Glasgow Airport Rail Link Bill Committee—had fully understood the terms of the embargo, there would have been no confusion. Given that no evidence from the private meeting is minuted, the corroborating evidence from the convener of the Glasgow Airport Rail Link Bill Committee is thrown into doubt, because she had to seek clarification at a later date from the same clerk. She was not sure what the clerk had meant by the embargo.
I oppose the Standards and Public Appointments Committee motion for three reasons. First, I was denied natural justice in this process. Secondly, I did not disregard the Glasgow Airport Rail Link Bill Committee, as the standards commissioner and the Standards and Public Appointments Committee allege. Thirdly, the penalty that will be imposed, should members believe the charges, is disproportionate for such a breach.
In not being allowed to appear before the Standards and Public Appointments Committee to answer the complaint against me, I believe that I was denied the natural justice that this Parliament rightly insists that members of the public should expect. I could not answer in person any allegations or questions or correct any misunderstandings. Would members who are either members of trade unions or sponsored by trade unions accept it if people whom they represent were accused of a breach of their employment terms by their employer but had no opportunity to address any committee dealing with the incident? Is it not right to expect that person to be able to present their own defence or to have someone represent them?
Instead, the process was conducted in writing. When I submitted my written response, I fully expected to be called to a subsequent committee meeting. In respect of natural justice, the system and the decision are flawed and the motion should be rejected.
Secondly, I do not believe that I disregarded the Glasgow Airport Rail Link Bill Committee. It is clear from the convener of the Standards and Public Appointments Committee's speech, that people still completely misunderstand the term "embargo." I have said constantly in my defence that I believe that there was a misunderstanding or confusion in the Glasgow Airport Rail Link Bill Committee. I certainly do not recall the clerk saying that nothing should be circulated, whether with an embargo or not. In fact, the paper on the release of the report that was circulated to members—I have it here—suggested that the release, which was to be issued the next day, would be embargoed until 8 o'clock. An embargo means that a paper is in circulation, but cannot be used.
It was my belief that in issuing my separate release—which was subject to the same embargo—to explain why I had dissented from the committee's decision, I was doing nothing more than ensuring that the information would be in the public domain to allow people to understand why I had dissented. I would not be so daft as to break the publication of the committee's report, or to misinform the public or the media, by putting out a news release in my name. That just does not make sense.
If I—or the clerk or the Glasgow Airport Rail Link Bill Committee—had fully understood the terms of the embargo, there would have been no confusion. Given that no evidence from the private meeting is minuted, the corroborating evidence from the convener of the Glasgow Airport Rail Link Bill Committee is thrown into doubt, because she had to seek clarification at a later date from the same clerk. She was not sure what the clerk had meant by the embargo.
In the same item of business
The Deputy Presiding Officer (Trish Godman):
Lab
The next item of business is a debate on motion S2M-5678, in the name of Brian Adam, on behalf of the Standards and Public Appointments Committee, on a breac...
Brian Adam (Aberdeen North) (SNP):
SNP
The details of the complaint that was made against Mr Monteith are set out in the report that the Standards and Public Appointments Committee published on 1 ...
The Deputy Presiding Officer:
Lab
I call Brian Monteith. Mr Monteith, you have three minutes.
Mr Brian Monteith (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Ind):
Ind
Three minutes? Thank you, Presiding Officer.I oppose the Standards and Public Appointments Committee motion for three reasons. First, I was denied natural ju...
Margaret Jamieson (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab):
Lab
Will the member take an intervention?
Mr Monteith:
Ind
No, I will not.
The Deputy Presiding Officer:
Lab
The member should be finishing.
Mr Monteith:
Ind
I have worked in the media for 16 years. I understand what an embargo means. To give a member a statement that has an embargo on it means that the statement ...
Mark Ballard (Lothians) (Green):
Green
I respect the fact that the Scottish parliamentary standards commissioner ruled against Brian Monteith, but I am genuinely concerned about how minority repor...
Margo MacDonald (Lothians) (Ind):
Ind
Although I do not wish to comment on many of the issues that Brian Monteith covered, I do not wish to be part of what can look like a kangaroo court. He was ...
Donald Gorrie (Central Scotland) (LD):
LD
The Standards and Public Appointments Committee contacted Brian Monteith and said that it wished to take further representations from him so that he could cl...
Brian Adam:
SNP
Brian Monteith's suggestion that he has not had natural justice does a great disservice to the Scottish parliamentary standards commissioner and the Standard...
Alex Neil (Central Scotland) (SNP):
SNP
On a point of order, Presiding Officer.I will not comment on the pros and cons of the case, but I am concerned that Mr Monteith had only three minutes in whi...
The Deputy Presiding Officer (Murray Tosh):
Con
That is a statable opinion, but the matter is not covered by the standing orders. In essence, the timings are directed by the business motion. If Mr Neil thi...
Margo MacDonald:
Ind
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. Further to Mr Neil's point of order, although standing orders do not cover every jot and tittle of what has gone on i...
The Deputy Presiding Officer:
Con
That might be a statable opinion, but it is not a point of order. If members want rules on such matters, they must consider how such rules could be introduce...