Meeting of the Parliament (Hybrid)

Meeting date: Thursday, December 16, 2021

Official Report 1106KB pdf

Point of Order

Presiding Officer, I wish to raise a point of order regarding exchanges at the end of yesterday’s debate on backing the north-east economy. It is undeniable that feelings were running high in that debate, and I was, of course, frustrated when Douglas Lumsden misquoted my comments about party-political support for the development of new fossil fuel extraction. I acknowledge that I do not know whether he had, in fact, ever bothered to check what I had actually said or whether he merely accepted at face value a false media report and repeated it without knowing.

Of course, I accept that matters of accuracy are not something that you are able to rule on, Presiding Officer. You and previous Presiding Officers have frequently been annoyed by accuracy matters being raised in that way, so I could and should have found a different way to challenge the inaccuracy and to ask Mr Lumsden to correct the record.

However, it is very clear that what followed was far more serious than a slightly annoying use of a point of order. In relation to a physical attack that took place against his local office, and speaking in direct reference to me, Mr Lumsden stated:

“I am not telling the police how to do their job, but perhaps they should consider that a member of this Parliament instigated that attack.”—[Official Report, 15 December 2021; c 63.]

Presiding Officer, in both his words and his body language, he made it perfectly clear that I was the member he was referring to. Let me be equally clear. This allegation of instigating an attack on his office is utterly baseless and deeply offensive. I consider it to be clearly defamatory, and, if it had been made anywhere else but in the chamber of Parliament, I would be taking legal advice.

Conduct in the chamber is regulated by the code of conduct and by your own role as Presiding Officer. We surely cannot permit a situation in which a member is able to level a completely spurious allegation of serious criminal conduct against another member without consequences. To do so would signal to all members that such disgraceful behaviour is acceptable. So, I ask you, what are the consequences for Mr Lumsden’s shocking abuse of his position in Parliament and how can all members be assured that they will be protected from such behaviour in the future?

I thank you for the advance notice of the point of order, Mr Harvie. Having reviewed the footage of the exchanges, I spoke privately this morning to Mr Lumsden and then to you, Mr Harvie. Feelings were indeed running high yesterday afternoon, and some of the remarks made in the chamber fell short of the standard of conduct required of members of this Parliament. As part of my discussion this morning, as you know, I asked Mr Lumsden to reflect on his language, and I do not expect any repetition. I consider the matter closed. Thank you.