On a point of order, Presiding Officer.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer.
I have two points of order. The first is James Dornan’s.
Thank you, Presiding Officer. As a member who takes his role as a member of the Public Audit Committee extremely seriously, I ask you for guidance on the comments made at First Minister’s question time today by the leader of the Opposition, Johann Lamont, in which she appeared to malign the integrity and impartiality of the Auditor General for Scotland, the Accounts Commission for Scotland and the members of the advisory board. I would be amazed if anyone else considered people such as Jackie Brock of Children in Scotland, Phil Jackson of the Educational Institute of Scotland, Eileen Prior of the Scottish Parent Teacher Council and the representatives of three Labour-run authorities—Sarah Else and Gordon Wardrope of Fife Council, Moira Niven of West Lothian Council and Maureen McKenna of Glasgow City Council—as part of some conspiracy to make the Scottish Government look good.
Presiding Officer, I have never had the pleasure to meet a number of those I mentioned, but I know Maureen McKenna. Maureen and I have had a number of differences of opinion over the years—
Yes, but can we just get to the point, Mr Dornan?
Three minutes.
Get to the point, Mr Dornan.
I am getting to the point, Presiding Officer.
Maureen and I have had a number of differences of opinion over the years—
Yes, but I am still waiting for you to get to your point.
I am sorry, Presiding Officer, but do I not have three minutes the same as everyone else does?
Mr Dornan! Please come to your point as quickly as possible.
Yes, Presiding Officer.
Not once in all my dealings with Maureen McKenna did I think that she was anything but honest and trustworthy. That takes me on to the Auditor General. We in the Public Audit Committee rely—
Mr Dornan, could you just sit down? This is not a speech; it is a point of order. Can you tell me what your point of order is and what you wish me to do?
I am looking for advice, and that is the point that I am coming to.
In the Public Audit Committee, we rely—[Interruption.] We rely on and believe in the veracity and impartiality of the Auditor General and the reports that she puts in front of us. We may sometimes disagree slightly with the emphasis or outcomes, but to my knowledge we have always believed that the reports were written without fear or favour by the Auditor General. Ms Lamont’s comments today suggest that we were wrong to do so and that the Auditor General is capable of being manipulated by politicians.
Presiding Officer, it is my contention that those comments were unworthy of this Parliament and the office that Ms Lamont holds. I would hope that she would reconsider the comments and apologise to the Auditor General, Maureen McKenna and all the others that she so unfairly traduced. However, that is a matter for her. I seek your guidance on what protection there is for individuals or organisations from potentially reputationally damaging statements from MSPs in this Parliament.
Thank you, Mr Dornan. I am sure that members are well aware, because I have said it repeatedly in the chamber, that it is not for the Presiding Officers to respond to a request for a ruling on the veracity of members’ contributions in the chamber—that is a matter for them. If you are concerned about the exchange today at First Minister’s questions and concerned in particular about the Public Audit Committee, may I suggest that you write to the Public Audit Committee and ask it to look at the matter?
Mr Rennie has a point of order.
Thank you, Presiding Officer. At First Minister’s questions today, the First Minister was asked about the Daily Telegraph news story that said that he had been presented with a report by civil servants on the cost to set up an independent country. I asked the First Minister to confirm whether there was nothing in the Daily Telegraph report that is true. He told me that the report
“has one snippet of truth: it says that officials met Professor Patrick Dunleavy. Yes, they did: they were with me when I met him.”
However, after First Minister’s questions, the First Minister’s press team held a briefing meeting where they revealed that a second element of the story was true: that the First Minister had received a report from civil servants on the set-up costs.
There are two issues that will be of concern to you, Presiding Officer. I will be brief. The first is that we have the First Minister saying one thing in this chamber and his official spokesman saying something completely different that contradicts the First Minister. We have only 12 days left sitting in this Parliament before the referendum. Time is running out for the answers that we want. Has the Presiding Officer received any indication from the First Minister that he wishes to make a statement to correct what he said today?
No, Mr Rennie, I have had no such indication. I say to Mr Rennie, as I have just said to Mr Dornan—as I have said innumerable times in this chamber—that what a member says in this chamber is not a matter for me, and that the Presiding Officers do not rule on veracity. I am also not responsible for what the First Minister’s or anybody else’s press officers say outwith this chamber.