Item 6 concerns an issue that arose from the Scottish Socialist Party's use of its half morning to have three 30-minute debates. There was a lot of comment about that in the chamber so, shortly after, I wrote to Sir David Steel. It struck me that we ought to be involved and not just let the Parliamentary Bureau deal with the matter. My letter staked a claim for us to be included in any decisions. If members agree, we will receive an issues paper on this in due course.
I do not have any problem with that in principle, but the heading that has been chosen for this agenda item is unfortunate. We do not want to dictate only to the non-Executive parties how they handle their half days. The principle is how we deal with 30-minute debates. It is not only the non-Executive parties that have 30-minute debates; the Executive has also, occasionally, had 30-minute debates. The issues paper that we receive should, therefore, be on 30-minute debates and not on non-Executive half days.
That is a fair point.
Have there been any complaints about 30-minute debates?
The general problem is the one that arose during the SSP debates—back benchers cannot get in. We must protect their rights. There are circumstances in which it is appropriate to have a 30-minute debate. However, our discussion should be about what those circumstances should be, not about the management of non-Executive half days. Non-Executive half days are really a matter for the non-Executive parties. The issue for us is 30-minute debates and access for back benchers.
If we are to have a paper along the lines that Brian Adam suggests, we must bear in mind the fact that the SSP debates were very different to the kind of debates that Brian is referring to, which do not tend to have too many back benchers wishing to speak. They tend to have more of an imperative, rather than being—as the three SSP debates were—on wide-ranging and important areas of business that cannot be dealt with appropriately in half an hour. It is important to draw a distinction between the two kinds of debates.
Following Brian Adam's suggestion will mean that we consider the two kinds of debates. We will consider the purpose of the Sewel debates, for which we generally have 30 minutes, and we will see the difference between that kind of debate and debates in non-Executive time.
I must add one thing to make this nice soup boil a bit—party managers. I do not mean business managers. When it comes to determining who speaks in a debate, we must remember the political system itself, which militates against back benchers. The very reason that back benchers might not have spoken in a debate is that they were told, "Don't bother—you're wasting your time."
That is a matter for you to resolve with your business managers. The point is that Sewel debates tend to be essential. There have to be debates on certain things, and allocating half an hour for such debates allows a decent minimum amount of time. Those debates have not been hugely controversial. Very different, however, is the raising of three vast political topics and the summoning of three ministers in the course of a morning. However, we are straying into the issues that our paper will bring out.
I ask you to accept that, if we are making rules for one set of people, those rules must be transparent and must impact on all groups in the same way.
That would be the purpose of the discussion.
All I am saying is that this is not just as simple as saying that the two kinds of debate are different; I can assure you that different pressures are also put on members.
It is worth pointing out that Presiding Officers do not stick rigidly to party lists.
As some party members are frequently heard to complain.
Ah'm no being a sook, Patricia, but Ah'm dead happy that that happens.
All right—we have agreed that we will receive a paper and consider all those issues in great depth.
Previous
Conveners' Speeches