Meeting of the Parliament (Hybrid)

Meeting date: Wednesday, September 30, 2020

Official Report 1098KB pdf

Point of Order

Good afternoon, colleagues. Today’s business starts with portfolio questions. Our first portfolio is social—

On a point of order, Presiding Officer.

In this chamber, on 17 January 2019, the First Minister said that the Salmond inquiries

“will be able to request whatever material they want, and I undertake today that we will provide whatever material they request.”—[Official Report, 17 January 2019; c 14.]

Will the Presiding Officer ask the First Minister to explain why she lied to Parliament?

I recognise the point of order, but before I address it I suggest to Mr Mundell that using words such as “lied” is not appropriate in the chamber. Mr Mundell is perfectly able to find words to express his concern without using such language. I ask him to consider that point.

Secondly, I believe that Mr Mundell may be a member of the Committee on the Scottish Government Handling of Harassment Complaints, which is considering the matter. If he is not, I beg his pardon. The convener of that committee is pursuing that issue on behalf of the whole committee. That is not the only route by which to raise such issues. Mr Mundell is perfectly at liberty to submit either written or oral questions, or, through his party’s business manager, to ask that parliamentary time be put aside for such matters. There are a number of ways in which the issue could be pursued.

However, I do not think that it constitutes a point of order for me, as Presiding Officer; it would be a point of order for the convener of the committee concerned. Mr Mundell is at liberty—as is any other member—to attend the meetings of that committee.

I ask Mr Mundell to consider his use of the term “lied” in the chamber, and I ask him to apologise for doing so.

I apologise to you personally, Presiding Officer, but in this case I feel that that is the appropriate word. I cannot find anything else that would express my sentiment.

That is not an apology. Do you want to rephrase what you said, please?

I do not think that it was fitting of Mr Mundell, nor does it reflect his character. I am sure that he is perfectly capable of finding language that will express his view about the accuracy of comments without personalising his remarks or using pejorative terms that are disrespectful to other members.

With due respect, Presiding Officer, I say that I think that it is disrespectful to Parliament for the First Minister to make a promise and not keep it. Therefore I cannot withdraw the word that I used.

Very well. I think that Mr Mundell has made his point. I am afraid that I have to ask him to leave the chamber. I do not think that such language is acceptable.