Point of Order
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I raise this point of order under rule 5.6.1(b), which concerns the allocation of parliamentary time for non-Executive business by the Parliamentary Bureau.
It is necessary for me to set out some events so that the chamber understands the situation. I believe that there is cross-party concern about the issues that I will raise.
On Friday, my office received a phone call from the office of the Minister for Parliamentary Business, suggesting that the Scottish Socialist Party might want to take its allocation of non-Executive business on 1 December. We asked if we could consider that in our group, democratically—[Laughter.] I know that democracy is a strange word for some people in the chamber. We told the minister that we would consider the suggestion at our meeting on Tuesday, although we had been given short notice, and would get back to her.
My office was pestered with phone calls during that meeting. I raised the matter at the Parliamentary Bureau constructively and asked that 8 December be considered. We did not reject 1 December; we asked for 8 December. The minister said that she would consider that and the Parliamentary Bureau agreed that it would be considered. Informally, the minister said that she would get back to me within 24 hours.
Despite making phone calls to the minister's office, the next thing that I heard about the situation was when she misrepresented and distorted the SSP's position on the allocation of business as part of the Executive's desperate attempt to avoid the issue of asylum seekers. Several phone calls failed to elicit any confirmation from her about the allocation of SSP business.
Today, the business team managed to achieve a response. We were told that the minister would have a date for me if I asked her in the chamber but that it was not possible to give the information over the phone.
As asked, I approached the minister in the chamber. She told me that she had forgotten what date was on offer and that an e-mail had been sent. When I saw the e-mail, I learned that both 1 December and 8 December were off the table and that we were being offered 22 December.
Given that rule 5.6.1(b) says that the Parliamentary Bureau allocates time, will the Presiding Officer look into this issue, investigate previous best practice and issue some guidance?
We have to state, quite categorically, that the allocation of time is for the Parliament, not the Executive. The time is Parliament's, not the Executive's; it is certainly not the minister's time. Will the Presiding Officer further investigate my claim that the Executive's behaviour is discourteous to non-Executive parties and this Parliament and that the minister is exercising greater power than the standing orders endow her with and has misrepresented the discussions and decisions of the Parliamentary Bureau?
I take seriously the matter of minority party time, although I deprecate the use of words such as misrepresentation and distortion. Margaret Curran will speak further to that point of order.
I welcome the opportunity to reply. As I explained to members yesterday, the SSP confirmed before the Parliamentary Bureau meeting on Tuesday that it did not want to take up the offer that I made last Friday of a business slot on the morning of 1 December. However, in an attempt to be helpful to the SSP, I said that I would try to identify further options and come back to it with an alternative date as soon as possible.
I am sure that most reasonable members appreciate that at this stage in the parliamentary year, pressure on the parliamentary timetable is intense with a considerable volume of work that requires to be completed before the Christmas recess. I try to accommodate as many of members' representations as possible.
After considerable disruption to the programme, I tried to get back to the SSP in 24 hours, but it was not possible. It took us two days to negotiate with ministerial colleagues and we were finally able to offer the SSP an alternative slot of the morning of 22 December.
Arranging Government business is a complex task, and the SSP has failed to grasp that point. I honoured my commitment to provide the SSP with an alternative slot. I did not force it to take the slot that I recommended; it is up to the SSP to decide whether it wishes to take that slot. I reassure Parliament that my approach with the SSP is no different from my approach with other parties and colleagues—the Scottish National Party, the Tories and the Greens. So far, we have all managed to co-operate with one another.
It is absurd that the smallest party group in the Parliament insists on special consideration. Just because it regrets turning down business, it should not raise a bogus point of order in the chamber.
I confirm that the allocation of SSP time was considered by the Bureau on Tuesday this week and the Minister for Parliamentary Business promised to revert to Ms Leckie.
In response to Ms Leckie, I say that the Minister for Parliamentary Business makes proposals to the bureau and the bureau disposes of parliamentary time collectively, by weighted majority if necessary. That is how we work and it is a democratic way to work.
I strongly suggest to Ms Leckie that she raise the matter again at the bureau next Tuesday and I hope that the matter can then be resolved amicably.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I hope that it is not a bogus one. I raise my point under rule 7.3 of standing orders. During yesterday's debate on the business motion, the Minister for Parliamentary Business stated that my colleague Chris Ballance had implied
"that if improvements are made in the situation for kids in England, that is of no interest at all to us."—[Official Report, 23 November 2005; c 21019.]
Following that, during First Minister's questions today, the First Minister stated that Opposition members had condemned improvements for children of asylum seekers in England; he later confirmed that he was referring to my colleague Chris Ballance.
Is it in keeping with rule 7.3.1 of standing orders for ministers and the First Minister to tell the chamber that a member said something that he did not say and for the First Minister to repeat the allegation and accuse me of disassociating myself from a colleague, when, in fact, the Greens have been nothing but patient and consistent throughout?
I will have to look at the documentation because I cannot conceivably rule on the matter at short notice. I will come back to you as quickly as possible.