Chamber
Plenary, 08 Mar 2007
08 Mar 2007 · S2 · Plenary
Item of business
Complaint
The Standards and Public Appointments Committee contacted Brian Monteith and said that it wished to take further representations from him so that he could clarify any points that he wished to make. He had already dealt with the matter fully with the Scottish parliamentary standards commissioner. Mr Monteith wrote to the committee at considerable length and set out interesting arguments about embargos. He did not indicate that he was desperate to come and speak to us. We understood that the letter was his defence.
The committee decided to support the standards commissioner's judgment. Although there are arguments about what is and is not an embargo, it is clear that the clerk to the Glasgow Airport Rail Link Bill Committee—or an equivalent person—made it clear to members of that committee that they should not say anything until the committee's report was in the public domain. Brian Monteith did say something, so it seems clear that there was a breach.
Although the previous incident involving Mike Pringle was different in many ways, it was of the same order of seriousness as the current case, so it is reasonable to impose the same penalty. We should try to have standards that people understand and go along with, so the Standards and Public Appointments Committee imposed the same penalty as was imposed on Mike Pringle.
The committee believes that Brian Monteith has had natural justice. We considered his arguments carefully, but we do not agree with them and we believe that the penalty is commensurate with the seriousness of the event.
The committee decided to support the standards commissioner's judgment. Although there are arguments about what is and is not an embargo, it is clear that the clerk to the Glasgow Airport Rail Link Bill Committee—or an equivalent person—made it clear to members of that committee that they should not say anything until the committee's report was in the public domain. Brian Monteith did say something, so it seems clear that there was a breach.
Although the previous incident involving Mike Pringle was different in many ways, it was of the same order of seriousness as the current case, so it is reasonable to impose the same penalty. We should try to have standards that people understand and go along with, so the Standards and Public Appointments Committee imposed the same penalty as was imposed on Mike Pringle.
The committee believes that Brian Monteith has had natural justice. We considered his arguments carefully, but we do not agree with them and we believe that the penalty is commensurate with the seriousness of the event.
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...