Points of Order
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I draw your attention to rule 7.3.1 of the standing orders, which covers conduct in the chamber. It calls on all members to be "courteous and respectful" at all times.
I would like to raise two points about the events at First Minister's questions today. The first is that, during her questions to the First Minister, Annabel Goldie stated that, on 3 December, the First Minister was accompanied by a Government special adviser in his meeting with the Trump Organization. That turns out not to be true. Therefore, I hope that Miss Goldie will take the opportunity to correct that assertion. [Interruption.]
Order.
Secondly, and much more seriously, in his questions to the First Minister, Nicol Stephen alleged that Aberdeenshire Council had to ask for the Trump representatives to leave the chief planner's room during a phone call last Thursday, implying that there was something improper in the chief planner's behaviour. This afternoon, the chief executive of Aberdeenshire Council, Alan Campbell, issued a press release in which he categorically states:
"There was no question of the Trump organisation being with the chief planner at that time."
It is one thing for members to attack others in the chamber when they can reply, but to attack a civil servant and official, who does not have the right of reply, is unacceptable. [Interruption.]
Order.
I put it to you, Presiding Officer— [Interruption.]
Excuse me, Mr Neil. I will have order in the chamber, please.
Presiding Officer, I put it to you that, in the light of the press release from Aberdeenshire Council, which totally contradicts the allegations from Mr Stephen, he has breached rule 7.3.1. He has not been courteous or respectful and he should withdraw the allegation and apologise profusely to the chief planner.
Robert Brown has a point of order, which I will take now.
It is on the same matter, Presiding Officer.
At the very time when the First Minister was on his feet at First Minister's question time today, his press team was busy briefing the BBC on the telephone calls between the chief planner's office and Aberdeenshire Council. There were two such telephone calls on the afternoon of Tuesday 4 December. The BBC had specifically asked about the first call. The BBC website indicates that it received an e-mail three minutes after the start of First Minister's question time stating that members of the Trump team were not in the room with the chief planner. The Government's answer to the BBC's question about who was in the room was:
"No-one other than the chief planner and … head of planning decisions. The Trump organisation were not in the room."
That denial was repeated twice.
Later, the statement to which Alex Neil referred, which was issued by the chief executive of Aberdeenshire Council, Alan Campbell, confirmed that, in the context of the first call, he was informed that members of the Trump Organization were in the chief planner's room. The chief executive, entirely properly, asked that they leave the room. That is all in the chief executive's press statement.
Presiding Officer, I seek your guidance on the situation, which in my experience is unprecedented. The Scottish National Party Government, through its press office, has deliberately misled the BBC. It did so in the context of a controversial Government call-in and an unexplained 24 hours in which there were crucial exchanges between the Government, its officials and the applicant.
Presiding Officer, can you advise me whether there is any procedure under which the Scottish Parliament can get answers on something that goes to the heart of the probity of the First Minister's Government? The chief planner acts in the matter on the instructions of Scottish ministers. If the First Minister maintains his position that he cannot answer, how can the Government be required to send a minister to the Parliament to give those answers?
Let me say to both points of order, because I think that they both fall into the same category, that, as I have repeatedly made plain, members are themselves largely responsible for what they say in the chamber. The allegations are very much of the "he said, she said" variety. If members, on reflection or on the uncovering of other facts, find that they have inadvertently misled the Parliament, I am sure that they will act accordingly. These are not points of order for me, as I have repeatedly made plain, and I would like to move to decision time.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer—it is really a point of clarification. We should all be aware of how much privilege we have in the Parliament. You have just ruled that members are entirely responsible for what they say. Is there no privilege such as exists in Westminster?
Members have protection but not to the same extent as in the House of Commons, as I understand it.
Before we move to decision time, I am sure that members would like to join me in welcoming to the gallery this evening the United States Under-secretary of State for Political Affairs, Ambassador Nicholas Burns. Ambassador, you are very welcome. [Applause.]