Standards and Public Appointments Committee, 27 Feb 2007

Meeting date: Tuesday, February 27, 2007

Official Report 154KB pdf

---

Complaint

I will announce the outcome of the complaint. The committee's decision is as follows.

The Standards and Public Appointments Committee considered the report by the Scottish parliamentary standards commissioner at its meeting on 13 February 2007 and again today. The committee accepts the commissioner's findings on the facts of the complaint and agrees with its conclusions that Mr Brian Monteith breached the code of conduct for MSPs.

The committee wishes to restate that it views very seriously the unauthorised disclosure of parliamentary material. Members of Parliament should all be well aware of the serious nature of carrying out such an action. This committee is aware that other committees share that view, as does Parliament. The ability to respect a confidence is a key responsibility for any MSP.

The committee is concerned that, although Mr Monteith issued his news statement with an embargo that matched that of his committee's news embargo, and although he claims that the media broke the embargo, his doing so was clearly in defiance of advice that was given to members on 5 June by the head of the private bills unit. At that meeting, what the embargo meant and the reasons why it was necessary were explained, and members were advised that nothing should be given to the media—embargoed or otherwise—prior to the 8 am release time. The official press release was not issued to any member of the media until 8 am on 8 June.

The committee also notes Mr Monteith's arguments and reasoning in respect of his releasing the statement to a journalist in advance of the committee's published report, the fact that he claims not to have acted from any malice or intention to usurp the committee or break its rules, and his claim that he will learn from the experience. Notwithstanding the explanation that has been offered, the committee is minded to accept the conclusions of the standards commissioner and agrees that there has been a breach of sections 9.4.2 and 9.4.8 of the code of conduct for MSPs. The committee also concurs with the commissioner's conclusions that Mr Monteith's conduct does not constitute a breach of sections 9.4.4 and 9.4.5 of the code.

I invite members to say whether they want the committee to recommend to Parliament any sanctions as a consequence of our decision to accept the commissioner's report that a breach has occurred.

I draw the committee's attention to our most recent case—that of Mike Pringle—although there are obviously considerable differences of detail between the two cases. Most people felt that the penalty that was inflicted on Mr Pringle was commensurate with the seriousness of the breach; the same penalty could reasonably apply to Brian Monteith. The penalty would be to exclude Mr Monteith from the business of Parliament—the full Parliament and its committees—for five working days. He could still use Parliament and its facilities to satisfy his work and constituents. I throw that idea into the pool as a starting point for discussion.

I support Donald Gorrie's suggestion. We spent a lot time on our previous decision, and considerable publicity was given to it and the reasons for it. A breach of the rules and of confidentiality is serious. A breach is a breach is a breach, as others have said before. The sanction that Mr Gorrie has recommended was appropriate in the previous instance and would be equally appropriate on this occasion, although the cases are not directly comparable.

I agree entirely with both members. Donald Gorrie mentioned the previous sanction as a good starting point, but I think that it might be more than that—it would be entirely appropriate, so I hope that we will consider it.

I concur with the other committee members. That sanction is fair and reasonable.

To get the technicalities right, I suggest that we recommend to Parliament that Brian Monteith be excluded from all meetings of Parliament and its committees for the first five sitting days immediately after the motion is agreed. Is that acceptable?

Members indicated agreement.

That will conclude the public part of the meeting. We will now consider the draft report and any other recommendations that we may wish to make in the light of what the standards commissioner has said. We will agree the report, and it will be published in due course.

I presume that we will seek a parliamentary debate as soon as possible.

Indeed. The committee has made its decision in public, and we will seek an early opportunity for Parliament to make its decision on our recommendations.

Meeting continued in private until 12:45.