On a point of order, Presiding Officer.
This will take time out of question time.
This morning, I raised concerns about the timetabling of the statement. Under rule 13.2.2 of the standing orders, ministers can ask for urgent statements to be made. Having heard the statement, do you feel that there was anything in it that was of an urgent nature and that was not informed by Gordon Brown's statement yesterday? Was it not cover for a very uncomfortable privatisation of prisons debate this morning?
As I have said, I shall reflect on what happened today. I take the matter seriously. I am not going to go beyond that at the moment. Let us get on with question time.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. After question time, we are due to debate the social work strategy. We are asked to endorse the Government's new strategy, copies of which we were given only 10 minutes before the beginning of this afternoon's business. That is highly irregular. Should the minister refer to the strategy in the ensuing debate, I ask you to rule her out of order as it is highly unlikely that any parties other than those in the Executive will be able to contribute to a debate on it.
The motion is in the business bulletin and down for debate later this afternoon. Anything that is said in pursuit of that motion or the amendments to it will be in order; anything outside that will not be in order.
With respect, Presiding Officer, the motion asks us to endorse a strategy that appeared only 10 minutes before the beginning of this afternoon's business. It is therefore improbable that we can endorse the strategy, which was mentioned on Tuesday but not revealed to us until today.
I honestly do not know what the member is referring to. The phrase "the Executive's strategy" does not refer to any particular document. The motion has been in the business bulletin for some time.
Further to the point of order, Presiding Officer. The motion specifically asks the chamber to endorse the strategy, which was made available to the Opposition parties at 11 minutes to 2. There has been no opportunity for us to consider the strategy, let alone to endorse it. Lodging a motion in respect of a document that it has not been possible for us to consider is an insult to the chamber and to the people of Scotland. Would it not be wise to ask the Executive to withdraw its motion until we have had an opportunity to consider the strategy—or at least to read it?
There is nothing in the standing orders to stop what has happened. The minister could announce the strategy in the course of her opening speech. The motion has been before members. If members were unhappy about not having enough information, they could have raised the matter much earlier.
With the greatest respect, with reference to the point that Alex Neil made, I know that you are aware that the role of the Presiding Officer is to protect members and to ensure equality of treatment. Surely it is impossible for members to take part in a debate on a strategy that they have not had time to read. Would it not be protecting the chamber, members and the people of Scotland to persuade the Executive to withdraw the motion at least until we have read the strategy?
That is a matter for the Executive. I remind you that the motion was lodged yesterday and that two parties have lodged amendments to it. Nobody raised an objection yesterday.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I draw your attention to rule 14.1.5 of our standing orders, which states:
This is not a document that is laid before the Parliament in terms of the standing orders. That is the problem.
Further to the point of order, Presiding Officer. Yesterday, I made strenuous efforts to contact the minister's office, which gave me assistance on the direction of the debate, but at no time did the officials or the minister's personal staff allude to the fact that a strategy would be published. The Opposition parties therefore had to assume that the Executive was referring to the strategy in general. We were limited by the Parliament's standing orders to lodging amendments, otherwise we would have been ruled out of order. It seems that it is all right for us to follow the rules, but that the Executive gets away with not following the rules when it feels that that is appropriate.
Those are legitimate points that can be made in the debate. I can deal only with the motion, which is in order, and the two amendments to it, which are also in order. I can only operate within the standing orders. Nothing that has happened is outwith the standing orders.
Under rule 8.1.2 of the standing orders, I move a motion without notice that we postpone this afternoon's debate until next week and use the hour and a half for proper scrutiny of the budget. It is clear that we have failed to have such scrutiny this afternoon. Members are being treated with contempt.
I am afraid that the answer is that changes to the business must be in a business motion, which can come only from the Parliamentary Bureau.
I think that we had this argument before Christmas, on individual learning accounts. I think that I won the argument and that I can move a motion without notice under rule 8.1.2 of the standing orders.
Order. The standing orders make it clear that only the Parliamentary Bureau can move changes to the business. I must make my ruling according to the standing orders. We are holding up question time, so we will proceed.
Previous
UK BudgetNext
Question Time