The third item on the agenda concerns the paper arising from Margo MacDonald's letter and the Presiding Officer's referral on topicality and urgency. The issues identified in the paper are emergency questions, supplementaries, emergency motions and ministerial statements. The officers have analysed each of those issues and have come up with recommendations. First, can we consider the recommendation on the decision to call an emergency question.
That is a very important issue, as it is a matter of interpretation. It is extremely helpful to draw to the Presiding Officer's attention the fact that the standing orders can be interpreted to allow emergency questions on a broader range of matters. This is the right step to take.
On the third page of the document, the sentence in bold type makes a good point about the inclusion of a wee note to explain why the question is urgent. That could be incorporated into whatever system we have.
Is there a question of balance? A member could conjure up an emergency and convince people that it was an emergency, yet he or she have chosen to omit mentioning certain issues to get the question treated as an emergency. I presume that the Presiding Officer will take a round view of the question that is posed.
I think that that is desirable.
The fact that no emergency questions have so far been allowed, despite requests for them, indicates that the presumption is against having them. The explanation for that is contained in Sir David's letter. That presumption has to be shifted to a position of neutrality.
Sure.
I have somewhere seen the important point made that such issues can be locally urgent rather than nationally urgent. A proposal to close a hospital in Ayr and to open one in Kilmarnock—or whatever—would be a big deal for the members who represent that area. That would not be a national issue, but it would still be urgent.
There is a fear that someone might jump the queue. As there should be a written note, the Presiding Officer will be given the opportunity to decide whether the issue is an emergency and whether it is locally rather than nationally important, which is the point that Donald Gorrie raised.
I think that we are generally in agreement on that item.
This morning, I had a brief discussion about this matter with someone in the Executive, who seemed to concur that the Executive did not oppose the proposal in any way, as it was an entirely logical development. If supplementaries are allowed for other questions, one could not disallow them in the circumstances of a national emergency and have only one member—who might not be the constituency MSP—asking a question. Supplementaries must be allowed.
We should bear in mind the point that I made earlier about supplementaries.
Yes—that point is even more germane to this issue. One would want to ensure that the question was very focused, because it is an emergency question.
Are members happy with that?
Will we have to wait to implement this, or will it pulled into current procedures?
It will be done right away.
I ask because this is one of the urgent issues that we are discussing today.
The decision on emergency motions seems to follow on logically on from what we have agreed about emergency questions.
I have, in a sense, jumped the gun on ministerial statements. I will report later on a meeting that I had with Tom McCabe. This issue was raised at that meeting and will be the subject of further discussion. I hope members are happy with that.
That is fine. However, this matter is of considerable concern, particularly to Opposition parties. There should be opportunities—used sparingly, as they are—for Opposition parties to be able to request and obtain a ministerial statement on an issue. Currently, there is no mechanism so to do.
I asked the Executive to think about this issue and to work out a protocol—with which we would all be happy—to determine what should be announced in the chamber. The point was made that the Executive makes announcements all the time and that to announce absolutely everything in the chamber would consume the business time of the Parliament. However, the minister was receptive to the idea that some issues are of sufficient moment and significance that members would wish them to be announced in the Parliament. The Executive needs to think through how it allocates the various decisions and the stages at which those decisions are taken. There is scope for dialogue to resolve this matter to everyone's satisfaction.
Murray, I wish to make another point about emergency ministerial statements to the Parliament following an Opposition demand for one, which should be infrequent. At the moment, there is no mechanism by which the Opposition can obtain such a statement.
I did not raise that specific point, although I raised the point that, I think, Alex Salmond raised in a point of order. I asked about the mechanism for debating an issue that is suddenly important and topical. The minister's view was that pressure had not been brought to bear through the bureau for debates of that nature. He felt that Opposition parties could request a debate by going through the bureau and that they could also request a change in the agreed forward programme of Parliament. Again, we could, through discussion, evolve a practice.
Will we keep the issue of ministerial statements under review?
The issue is under discussion. My intention is to steer the talks reasonably crisply through to a code of practice, protocol or understanding—whatever may evolve—that will satisfy all interests. However, if I do not make progress, I will report back to the committee, which will have the opportunity to discuss what steps it wants to take as a consequence.
A balance should be struck, to be fair. Mike is right to say that the Opposition parties might want a discussion about some pressing matter. However, if the First Minister is working in the background to make his statement valid, correct and appropriate, he may require some time. We must find a resolution to the issue somewhere between the two positions. A pressing matter may be raised by an Opposition party that is saying, "Let's exploit—", or rather, "Let's get more information about a situation". However, the Executive must be allowed to respond appropriately and meaningfully with a statement that is not a knee-jerk reaction but that contains information that people will find of interest.
Tom McCabe also made the fair point that there were occasions when ministers made an announcement that reflected a direction in which they intended to go on an area of policy, without having worked it up to the stage where they were ready to come to Parliament for detailed questioning. There are interests on all sides in this matter and a balance to be struck. I assure members that the committee will have the opportunity to discuss this matter again.
Previous
Priority Issues