Plenary, 14 Mar 2007
Meeting date: Wednesday, March 14, 2007
Official Report
728KB pdf
Point of Order
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. Last Thursday, Parliament voted to impose a sanction on Brian Monteith MSP on the recommendation of the Standards and Public Appointments Committee. Many who were present in the chamber were puzzled by the exchanges between Brian Monteith and members of the Standards and Public Appointments Committee. Indeed, in her contribution, Margo MacDonald remarked that
"Brian Monteith was not given the chance to face his detractors and accusers."
She went on to say:
"I thought that the chance to do that was a basic element of what we call justice."—[Official Report, 8 March 2007; c 33015.]
Indeed, it is, Presiding Officer. I believe that the proper procedure as laid down in the Standards Committee's 12th report 2002, made during the previous session of Parliament, might not have been followed. On 30 January 2003, Parliament agreed the report, which states:
"The Clerk will also ask the member whether or not the member wishes to appear before the Standards Committee to make representations about the Standards Commissioner's findings in fact or the Standards Commissioner's conclusion."
That procedure was put into the code of conduct to ensure that any MSP who is facing censure is able to appear before the Standards and Public Appointments Committee in person if they wish to do so. It is also incorporated into the Standards and Public Appointments Committee's report on changes to the code of conduct, which we are to debate here later today.
Page 48 of the Standards and Public Appointments Committee's report on Mr Monteith contains the text of an e-mail from him that states:
"I write to confirm that I would wish to appear before the Committee at a later date to make representations about the Standards Commissioner's conclusion".
He then went on to say:
"I will be pleased to provide further written evidence in advance of any further consideration or prior to my oral evidence if it is required."
At last Thursday's debate, Mr Monteith argued that he had been denied the opportunity to make a representation to the committee in person. If that was true, it would undermine the whole process and bring Parliament into disrepute. Was Mr Monteith denied his right to appear in person before the Standards and Public Appointments Committee, according to our rules?
One interpretation of Mr Monteith's e-mail is that he was not requesting to appear in person, but that is not Mr Monteith's interpretation. He believes that his e-mail was quite clear and that he made a request to appear before the committee in person.
Presiding Officer, if Mr Monteith was denied his right to appear in person before the committee, in accordance with our rules, after he expressly requested such an appearance, then there can be no doubt that our rules were broken. If, on the other hand, the Standards and Public Appointments Committee interpreted his e-mail as being rather ambivalent and not a request to speak to the committee, then our rules have not been broken. Even if the latter is the case, the Standards and Public Appointments Committee members should have ensured that there was no doubt about the issue. At the very least, it would have been unhelpful to give the impression that Mr Monteith was not allowed to appear before the Standards and Public Appointments Committee to confront the evidence in person.
Presiding Officer, I would appreciate it if you would consider this issue and ensure that the rules of this Parliament, as outlined in the Standards Committee's 12th report 2002, which was incorporated into the code of conduct, have been complied with, namely that a member—any member—who is subject to a complaint under stage 3 of the complaints process, has the opportunity to appear before the committee if he or she so wishes.
I thank Mr Rumbles for his advance notification of the point of order and for the considerate way in which he has advanced his argument. That has enabled me to look into the matter and to refer to and read last week's Official Report.
Although it is not for me to adjudicate on the process that was followed, I confirm that, as stated by the convener last week, the Standards and Public Appointments Committee met its obligations under the code of conduct in full.
I also confirm that in such matters, a member is entitled under the code to be asked to appear in front of the committee.