Parliamentary Time
Item 2 is a round-table discussion. We welcome, in alphabetical order, Graham Blount, who is from the Scottish Churches Parliamentary Office; Andrew Cubie, who is very distinguished in many ways, but who is here today as a former member of the consultative steering group; Iain McMillan, director of the Confederation of British Industry Scotland; John Park, assistant secretary of the Scottish Trades Union Congress; Brian Taylor, whom we all fear, the political editor of BBC Scotland; and Debbie Wilkie, the director of the Scottish Civic Forum.
We hope to have perhaps an hour and a quarter or an hour and a half of free-flowing discussion—but with only one person speaking at once, which will be quite difficult. The committee has a remit to address particular issues to do with parliamentary time, which the witnesses have been sent. We are dealing specifically with our sitting pattern and with the allocation of time, but we are interested in your views on a wide range of issues. I invite each of you to spend a couple of minutes giving us the main points that you would like us to take on board in our review of how the Parliament uses its time.
The Rev Graham Blount (Scottish Churches Parliamentary Office):
I welcome the opportunity to be part of this discussion. I am slightly concerned to find myself sounding rather conservative—with a small c—on this subject, but I believe that the basic sitting pattern of the Parliament works quite well, at least from my perspective and from that of the churches' engagement. I would be concerned were the Parliament to move away from the rule that committees cannot meet at the same time as the Parliament is in plenary session. That would create an undue conflict of interest and could demean one or other part of the Parliament's business.
We would be disappointed were Parliament to move to a two-weekly cycle. Some have suggested having one full week of plenary sittings followed by a week concentrating on committees. I would be slightly concerned that Brian Taylor and his colleagues might be tempted to view that as evidence of the part-time nature of the Parliament, which is often suggested, although I would not accept it to be true. We would not wish to do anything to undermine the credibility of the Parliament. Such an arrangement would be inflexible when it came to any events occurring at the beginning of the weeks when there was to be no plenary session. It would be unfortunate if something dramatic happened and Parliament did not have the opportunity to consider it.
I welcome the interest that has been shown in stage 3 debates and I share many of the concerns that have been expressed about their procedures.
As far as any changes are concerned, most of us who engage with Parliament's business and who try to provide the element of participation that forms part of how Parliament does its business feel that it would be helpful to have more notice of forthcoming business, although we recognise that "events, dear boy" might require business to be changed at the last minute. By and large, the value of surprising the Opposition in debates—whatever Opposition that is—is perhaps overestimated, whereas the value of people being aware of what is coming up is underestimated.
I, too, greatly welcome the opportunity to take part in this round-table discussion. I was reflecting that it is almost seven years since the CSG presented its report to the then Secretary of State for Scotland. We were given a blank sheet of paper on which to make proposals for the working arrangements of the Parliament. It is a matter of clear reflection just how much the landscape has changed over the past seven years.
One of the four key principles that we identified was that
"the Scottish Parliament should be accessible, open, responsive and develop procedures which make possible a participative approach to the development, consideration and scrutiny of policy and legislation".
The general observation that I make at the outset of my evidence is that, by and large, the Parliament has met that principle. It is a great credit to the Parliament that it has done so. The principle can be seen at work particularly through the committee structure. I have some experience of appearing before committees in Westminster, Cardiff and Belfast—when the Northern Ireland Assembly was sitting—and it is my experience that the Scottish Parliament has been very strong at meeting the CSG criteria of openness, responsiveness and participation. That is tremendously important in a unicameral Parliament.
If I may, I will mention two or three general matters before I turn to the issue of timing. The scale of activity in the initiation of legislation through the committee structure is very important. Indeed, it might be constructive if more time were to be allocated to committees to lead in debates. Another matter is whether committees meet sufficiently frequently outside of Edinburgh. As is clear from our recommendations, the CSG had a strong sense that that was an important element of a participative and open Parliament. I appreciate that the recommendation leads to timing issues for the Parliament.
The issue also bears on the Parliament's consultation processes. I commend page 145 of the CSG report to the committee. Under the heading "Mechanisms to Facilitate Participation in the Work of Parliamentary Committees", members will see the various recommendations that we made. I note with interest that one of them was the co-option of non-MSPs to sit as non-voting members of committees.
It is essential that the Parliament continues to operate on a family-friendly basis. Our early thinking was that the Parliament should respect school holidays, a provision that continues to be met. Members of the Scottish Parliament have the best view of their time allocation. It is important to look at the outputs of activity, which clearly have to balance the considerations of constituency, party, travel time, committee work and plenary activity.
In that regard, I am very supportive of the Procedures Committee's further review. I will be interested in what members have to say about the way in which their time allocation would be spent most usefully. The consideration of outputs is the most important element of that question—probably even more so than the process. In that regard, and as was mentioned in the previous inquiry into parliamentary time, anything that could be done to improve planning would be appropriate, both for MSPs and for the people with whom they deal.
Returning to the work of seven years ago is not unlike returning to an old exam paper. At the time, all of us were steeped in the issues, but I now feel rather less well qualified to contribute to the debate. That said, the committee might find it interesting to revisit the issue of whether it is competent for committees to sit at the same time as plenary sessions take place in the chamber. I suggest that the committee consider the matter by way of a record of attendance at plenary debates. In that way, it would be possible to predict the extent to which the existence of the rule would hold back committee work.
Iain McMillan (CBI Scotland):
Thank you for inviting CBI Scotland to attend the meeting. We regard the work of the Parliament and its various committees as being of the utmost importance. We are always very pleased to be invited to give evidence when required.
A few moments ago, Andrew Cubie mentioned the outputs of the Parliament. I echo the remarks that he made. As an organisation, we have a significant interface with the Parliament; we are very interested in most of the legislation that is considered and passed by it. However, we feel that the management of the process is best considered and decided by MSPs and their officials. We are not part of the management process.
It is important to us that consideration of matters by the Parliament and its committees is evidence based and that the thinking and the results of that consideration are of the utmost quality. The Parliament should consider legislation on the basis of sound evidence. When it reaches the statute book, legislation should be of the utmost quality and should achieve what its drafters intended.
Andrew Cubie mentioned the family-friendly operation of the Parliament, and the Scottish Trades Union Congress submitted evidence on that. The CBI would support a family-friendly working environment. The arrangements that existed in another place were very archaic and did not work well at all. I am very pleased with the general working times in the Parliament.
I would like to make a last point about the work of the committees, although I will not go into much detail at the moment, as perhaps we can discuss it later. From time to time, the notice that we are given by committees to submit evidence and to go to a committee to give oral evidence to support written evidence is quite short. Before the establishment of this Parliament, we had much more time to prepare for evidence sessions at the House of Commons—we even negotiated with the clerks about when we would give evidence.
I would be happy to give more detail if it is of interest to the committee as we move through the discussion.
John Park (Scottish Trades Union Congress):
Like everyone else, I thank the committee for the invitation to be here today; it is an opportunity that the STUC welcomes.
We submitted a short evidence paper outlining some general comments. We carried out our own internal consultation, as we do on many such issues. It is fair to say that no strong views came forward from the trade union movement about its engagement with the Parliament.
Resource issues have intensified for the trade union movement over the past six or seven years since the Parliament came on stream. Our level of engagement is much greater than it has ever been. That is because Westminster is quite a bit away and many of the policies that trade unions were pursuing would have been followed to a national level.
We are broadly in favour of the present arrangements on parliamentary time. We are strongly in favour of the broad nine-to-five arrangements that we argued for. That is important not just for people who work in the Parliament or for MSPs; it is important for people who are trying to engage with the Parliament. The times must be acceptable for people who want to come along.
Unison was concerned that a weekly sitting pattern along the lines of the European Parliament might not be suitable for the Scottish Parliament. We felt that such an arrangement was more relevant to the European Parliament, given the great distances that MEPs have to travel.
Having further notice of debates was mentioned earlier. For organisations such as ours, whose resources can sometimes be thin on the ground, that would be very helpful. Our relationship with the Parliament is very much focused through the committees and much of our effort goes into committees. Sometimes, the lead time for submitting evidence can be a little bit on the short side. However we recognise that committees' priorities can change quickly.
The past six years have been a great opportunity for many ordinary trade union members and activists who would never have engaged politically at Westminster. That has predominantly happened through the committee structure, which we are happy with. I am happy to answer any questions that members might have.
Brian Taylor (BBC Scotland):
Members must forgive my slight apprehension at being on the other side of the fence for once. I have been a journalist and full-time practising nuisance since I succeeded Chris Ballance as editor of the St Andrews student newspaper more years ago than either of us would care to confess.
There is a different model of democracy operating in Scotland these days. We have moved from the elective model, whereby the people give a mandate to a Government that governs pretty well as it chooses for four or five years, through a consultative model, whereby the people are consulted and the Government either heeds or ignores their advice, to what I think is the beginning of a participatory approach, which involves people taking part not only in the formulation of policy but in its implementation, which a lot of people do not fully realise. That means that the legislators and the people upon whom their doings are inflicted must both take some responsibility for the legislation. I think that that model requires there to be a conduit of information between the Parliament and the people. If I am allowed one plug—and I will probably take several—BBC Scotland is one of the principal conduits that are involved in shifting that information.
With regard to the broadcasting implications of parliamentary timetabling, you would hear a different view from different BBC editors. Although "Holyrood Live" accounts for several hours a week of live television coverage of the Parliament, coverage is also provided by "Scotland at Ten", "Politics Scotland", the "Politics Show", "Reporting Scotland", "Newsnight", "Good Morning Scotland", "Newsdrive", "Newsweek", "Sunday Live", Radio nan Gaidheal and BBC online. As well as that, the Scottish Parliament is covered for several hours a week on the BBC Parliament channel and is also dealt with on Radio 4's "Yesterday in Parliament". There are umpteen outlets and it is possible that each of the people who are responsible for those programmes will have different opinions about timetabling and business.
As Iain McMillan said in another context, it is explicitly not our role to tell MSPs how to conduct their parliamentary business. If we did, you might then reasonably come back to us if you felt that we had guided you the wrong way. However, every decision has a consequence and it is, perhaps, reasonable to share with you what we believe would be the broadcasting consequences of certain timetabling changes.
For what I am sure were good reasons on the part of the principals involved, First Minister's question time was moved from the afternoon to the morning. However, that has substantially reduced the audience for our live television coverage to a quarter of what it was. That does not mean that it was a wrong decision or that you necessarily want to change that; it is simply a consequence of what has happened.
On radio, on television and online, we have covered committees substantially; we are, perhaps, the only people who cover committees substantially. We would have concerns about the implications of there being a week entirely dominated by committee meetings and a week entirely dominated by plenary sessions. That would lead to the impression of there being an in-and-out Parliament with a bizarre sitting pattern. Further, it would not give us the blend of news that we would seek, especially during the committee-only weeks.
Regarding the advance notice that is given, I would say that our prime concern is news and current affairs. Therefore, we regard topicality and relevance as being extremely important in the debates and question sessions. We would have grave concerns about debates having to be scheduled several weeks ahead. I cannot see how, in that circumstance, they would be topical for us or relevant to the people of Scotland.
With regard to the issue of the committees and the chamber sitting at the same time, I am told by those who know more about these things than I do that that would pose us technical problems. Apparently, although we can monitor all the committees, we can record only two channels simultaneously. If the chamber is sitting, that means that we can record only one committee at the same time. That might cause us some problems. I also think that there would be reporting problems as, like it or not, the focus would be on the chamber. We would have to divert resources if we were to watch the committees as well.
I am happy to join in the committee's discussion later.
Debbie Wilkie (Scottish Civic Forum):
The Scottish Civic Forum is strongly supportive of the principles of the consultative steering group. Some of the discussion relates to people's ability to be able to participate in the work of the Parliament.
In general terms, we would be opposed to changes that made it less easy for people to participate and that might diminish the pluralism in the Parliament. Much of the feedback that we had from our members and others is that people welcome the quality of debate that participation and pluralism enable.
Although I note Brian Taylor's point about topicality, because the Scottish Civic Forum works with small community-led groups that might operate with a voluntary committee and no paid staff, we know that advance warning is crucial for many people. Iain McMillan mentioned how difficult it is for the CBI to turn around evidence. We can multiply that by 20 for small community-led groups that work without paid staff. Given the Parliament's commitments to being participative, it would be a matter of concern if participation were diminished further.
We have strong concerns about committee and plenary meetings happening simultaneously. We would be concerned that the quality of debate in committee and plenary might be diminished and that the legitimacy of decisions and votes taken might be diminished.
Thank you—that was helpful. If we look at the questions that were set in your exam paper, is it fair to say that everyone agrees that the current sitting pattern is okay by and large, or is that a misrepresentation? One member raised as a possibility the question of committee and chamber meetings happening at the same time but, on the whole, the feeling seemed to be against that. Does anyone wish to discuss that further?
Beyond the technical reasons that Brian Taylor outlined for not having committee and plenary meetings simultaneously, Debbie Wilkie mentioned her concern that votes might be affected. Would it make a difference if there were a clash with a stage 3 plenary session rather than with a normal plenary debate? As Andrew Cubie said, the normal plenary debates are not well attended sometimes, so that might be a good reason to use some of that time for important committee business and to give committees some flexibility to take extra evidence. We feel that committee schedules are sometimes very pushed.
Does anyone from the visiting team wish to respond?
The observation that we all made is that you and your colleagues are best able to judge the scheduling demands. However, my proposition is certainly not to diminish in any sense the power of the chamber, but simply to consider occasionally that such a combination of committee and chamber activity could take place at the same time. I appreciate Brian Taylor's point, but I am sure that technology might in some way overcome that problem in this brave age.
I thank everybody for their written evidence and their statements this morning. From some of the comments, we might be forgiven for getting the impression that we could close the inquiry now, as everybody seems to be quite happy.
One of the matters that troubles the committee a wee bit—it is something that we will have to look at in detail—is that the sitting patterns of the Parliament can become difficult at certain times of the year and we are stretched to deal with the business that we have to get through. That is the case in April and May in particular, when we are rushing to pass legislation. Does anyone have any views on whether we could alter the sitting patterns? One downside of that could be that we might curtail committee time even more.
My comment is based on the experience that I bring with me from other committees. There have been times when it has been necessary for committees to do things that they otherwise would not have done, such as meeting at lunch time or after 5 o'clock. Although I am sympathetic to the idea that committees should not meet at the same time as plenary sessions, I know of incidents when that has been almost unavoidable. I would be interested to know what other members would think if we decided to go down a road that did not mean that it was the norm for committees to meet during plenary sessions, but that gave an opportunity for the Parliament, perhaps through the business motion, to grant permission for committees to meet at the same time as plenary sessions in emergency circumstances. All the restrictions that we have touched on would apply.
What do the visitors who are on the whole against committees meeting at the same time as plenary think of the idea of that being possible occasionally?
I can see the force of the argument; my points were purely technical and practical. Andrew Cubie is right that we can get round anything—we do it on a daily basis. I hear a number of members saying that practical obstacles are being placed in the way of parliamentary scrutiny and parliamentary work and I would observe that those are far bigger problems than a few obstacles for Her Majesty's BBC.
I would be sympathetic to Alex Johnstone's suggestion. My only concern would be the ease with which an exceptional and emergency provision can become a matter of routine, so that the business motion almost every week has tagged on to it permission for committees to meet at the same time as plenary. I would be happy to accommodate that as an emergency position if there were some proviso to ensure that it did not become a matter of routine. I am sure that it is not beyond the wit of the committee to find such a proviso.
I appreciate Cathie Craigie's point about seasonal pressure. I am aware that such pressure is felt, but I am not quite sure why that should be. We inherited the idea from the CSG that a bill that does not complete its progress before the summer recess—or the end of the parliamentary year—does not automatically fall but is picked up where it left off. I am not clear whether the extra pressure that seems to be felt in May and June is just a matter of tidiness and that MSPs want to get the thing over and done with so that they can feel a sense of satisfaction when they go on their holidays. We all feel that, but that should not generate the kind of pressure that MSPs feel; there are other times when the pressure is not on. I would have thought that the way in which the parliamentary year is structured—without taking into account the artificial break—would mean that there is a way round that without an undue change to the sitting pattern. I suggested in our written evidence an occasional, marginal extension of the day to 7 o'clock, again as a matter of exceptional practice, particularly in relation to stage 3 debates. I would find that acceptable.
Your point is well made, Graham. We are under no pressure to carry legislation over, except in the world of real politics, where we are under substantial pressure to get things finished. I am quite sympathetic to the view that the final two weeks before the summer recess could be dedicated to plenary sessions to allow us to debate bills at stage 3 in greater depth. One of the criticisms of the Parliament is that we do not allow sufficient time for stage 3 debates. If we are realistic, in those last couple of weeks the committees sometimes do not have legislation to consider and committee agendas can be quite light—some committees may not meet in the last week. In the last two weeks before the summer recess, there is scope for us to have plenary sessions only.
Something that frustrates me as a back bencher—Graham Blount mentioned it earlier—is that we do not receive sufficient notice of motions and amendments, either for Executive debates or Opposition debates. I am not suggesting that we should be told miles in advance, but I would like to leave the Parliament on Thursday knowing what I am going to be debating the following Wednesday. I want Brian Taylor to have his spontaneity and I want the issues discussed to be current, but I want organisations to be better able to brief MSPs on the issues that are being debated the following week. In plenary, we are taking decisions that impact on Scotland. I would like our briefings to be better and I would like to have time to consider the briefings. I do not want to be reading a briefing for the first time as I am sitting in the chamber waiting to vote. Would advance notice be attractive to outside organisations?
I will come back to what Karen Gillon said, because we have done some work on the matter recently, but first I will say that the work of the committees is important. As Iain McMillan said, the issue is outputs, about which we will have to be guided by members. More time will be required to consider certain topics. If a mechanism could be put in place to allow for that, we would be supportive. I do not see any conflict—we would have to use resources to have people attending debates and committees, but we would not be in every day. We would be engaged, but not that engaged, if you know what I mean.
I turn now to Karen Gillon's point. Recently, I have taken a different approach to how we work with the Parliament. Last week, we attempted to brief MSPs on a debate. To meet timescales, e-mails can be useful, but they are not always read. I have been told that it is important to give people paper copies. They are easier to read and people get informed a lot more quickly.
Any extra notice of debates would be helpful to organisations such as ours that are involved in general campaigning and want to engage with MSPs on particular issues.
I want to talk about motions for debate. The subject matter might be made known a week or even a fortnight in advance, but when we see the motion for debate and the amendments, we often wonder what relevance they have to the original subject matter. It is not much help to be told a week in advance that there will be an Executive debate next Thursday on education. We say, "Well, great—but any particular steer on which part of that subject we might be looking at?" The Procedures Committee should consider the timing for when motions have to be lodged, as the motion gives a wide focus on the subject to be debated.
I have been a member of the Scottish Parliament for just over two years, but the issue of stage 3 timings never seems to go away; it comes up constantly, although it might be more acute at the tail-end of a parliamentary year.
I understand what people have said about family-friendly policies, but we sometimes have to think about the real world outwith the Parliament—although I do not want that to be taken in a way that it is not meant to be taken. When a committee needs more time, we always assume that it has to be taken from the Wednesday afternoon or the all-day Thursday of the plenary sessions. Why can we not use Mondays or Fridays?
There is constituency work to do.
I know that people have different surgery arrangements. However, at the risk of being very unpopular with my colleagues, I will say that during the 15 years that I served as a councillor I worked full time and I did other things in the evenings and at weekends in relation to surgeries.
I want to throw the issue open for discussion, because I think that it might provoke a response—I can see that it has already provoked one from Karen Gillon. I realise that there are timetabling difficulties in getting all the members of a committee together at particular times, especially at short notice, as invariably is the case.
Perhaps we are looking at the matter the wrong way when we just think that time for extra committee work should be taken during the Parliament's plenary sessions. I would not like to go down the route of constantly having committees meeting then. I know that that has already happened, but once the precedent is established the practice will be employed regularly and we will see the overlap on more and more occasions. Perhaps committees should look a bit further forward at the time that they will require and pencil in days for extra committee meetings outwith the Wednesday afternoon and Thursday periods that are used for the plenary session.
In the light of Bruce McFee's comments, and at the risk of incurring the wrath of my colleagues, I would like to distinguish between constituency and list members. I left my house at 8.45 am yesterday and got back at 10.45 pm and I have no idea where I could have found another point in the day when I could have attended a committee meeting. If we want to operate in a vacuum, we can meet on Mondays and Fridays. That is fine. I work at weekends and I do not have a problem with working at weekends if my constituency demands that of me, but on a Monday and Friday one of the key elements of my work is taking soundings from the people whom I represent on the legislation and policies of the Parliament. If the only people whom I am going to speak to are the people who are invited to the Parliament, the legislation that we pass will be all the poorer for it. I hold my constituency time dear and I try to use it as best I can.
I am interested in the issue and I think that Graham Blount is right to say that there are occasions when we will have to meet until 7 o'clock in the evening—with appropriate notice, people can make those arrangements. However, I have two small children and I came into this Parliament because I believed that it was different from Westminster. If I wanted to sit from Monday morning till Friday night, I would go to the House of Commons and work in that kind of environment.
Are we serious about continuing the good work that we have engendered? It was either John Park or Iain McMillan who said that the family-friendly nature of this place is not just about the people who sit in the Parliament but about the people who engage with it. If we move to evening sittings, people will have to work outside that time. People work at night, but they have to do that for a reason and I would be cautious about our cocooning ourselves away from the people whom we represent if we were here from Monday to Friday.
I agree. People in the communities that we represent like the access that they have to MSPs and the fact that we are about in the constituency on Mondays, Fridays, Saturdays and Sundays. We are also available in the evenings, when people can bring problems to us or we can go and speak to various community groups. Bruce McFee seemed to suggest that committees do not use Fridays and Mondays, but they do—they even use Saturdays as well. When a committee is handling a particularly big piece of legislation and wants to go out to meet people in places other than Edinburgh—that is something that Andrew Cubie mentioned—a lot of us want to take that opportunity to gather round-table evidence in an informal way. People do not always want to do that regularly, but committees meet outside the usual times in certain circumstances.
I thought that the remit for our committee was, basically, to say that the parliamentary week starts at 9 o'clock on a Tuesday morning and ends at 5 o'clock or 7 o'clock on a Thursday evening; I thought that we were going to curtail our review of the parliamentary timetable to those hours. However, I am willing to be corrected if that was not the remit that we set ourselves.
I am advised that that is correct.
I have some sympathy with what Cathie Craigie has said. Our experience of taking debate to people around Scotland is that the opportunity to speak to MSPs in the early evening, for example, is extremely valuable for people who may be involved in a particular issue but are not professional policy officers and who would not necessarily be able to come to a committee meeting in Edinburgh during the working week. From the point of view of encouraging broad participation and debate on the work of the Parliament, I am sympathetic to the idea of retaining that facility, which would mean that MSPs would not be trapped in Edinburgh throughout the working week.
The clerk's paper contains some questions about the allocation of time. We have dealt thoroughly with the one about giving more notice of topics and motions for debate, for which there seems to be strong and unanimous support. Related to that is the suggestion that committees should structure their work so that people who give evidence have more notice of when they will be asked to appear.
One of the questions is about how much chamber time is allocated to Executive debates and how much of it is allocated to Opposition debates. Related issues include the proportion of time that is spent on legislation rather than on debates and the opportunities that individual MSPs have to raise issues that are of particular concern to them. Do any of our visitors or any of the people to whom they speak have thoughts about those matters? Chris Ballance is not a visitor, but he is welcome to speak.
I do not want to leap in before our visitors; I simply want to add an extra issue for them to consider. In its third report in 2003, our predecessor committee considered members' business debates. The clerks have helpfully given us a list of some of its recommendations, one of which was that one of the members' business slots could be moved to an earlier time, which would put a stop to the rather disorderly situation that ensues just after 5 o'clock, when 123 MSPs walk out of the chamber just as members' business is beginning. Another suggestion was that the number of members' business debates could be increased to raise their profile. I just wondered whether we could add those issues to the questions that the visitors consider.
My concern is always for topicality and news. I cannot help it; I have been a journalist for too long to get out of that habit. I acknowledge that there can be a dilemma because there is a contrast between what is in the public interest and what interests the public. If the Parliament was to focus on the latter, it would be debating the future of Alex McLeish and Graham Rix. [Interruption.] If Karen Gillon and Cathie Craigie want to debate that, I can probably guarantee them that the story would get on "Reporting Scotland", but that is by the by.
I will not try to tell the committee what to do about the allocation of time but, as a journalist, I think that far too much time is given to Executive business, most of which is on the motion, "Is virtue a good thing?" As a consequence, the bulk of such debates are bland and anodyne. The idea of having committee-led debates is excellent. Although the work of committees often offers superb material that is topical, relevant and challenging, it is often sporadic, bitty and difficult to pull together in a news report. During committee meetings, a little bit of evidence is given, then there are some questions and then the committee moves on to something else. A committee-led debate would give committee members the opportunity to take a sounding in the Parliament on an issue that had arisen from a consultation or in discussion with one of the groups that frequently give evidence.
Collectively, we in Scotland are in danger of forgetting what the Parliament is for. It is for holding the Executive to account, for making the law and for ventilating issues that are of concern to the people—rather than the Government—of Scotland. I think that that final point has been lost.
I fully support what Brian Taylor said, although in much of this discussion it is hard for those of us from beyond the Parliament to understand the nature of the mischief. For example, we do not know whether committees and their conveners are frustrated that topics that are of interest to them cannot be discussed adequately in debates in the chamber, although my sense is that that is the case. I do not want always to sound like the historian by saying what things were like when we were putting all the arrangements together in the consultative steering group, but there was a clear understanding that the committees would have a prominent role in the Parliament's work. If that was the case, there would be ample chamber time for debating committee propositions. Like Brian Taylor, I urge that attention be paid to achieving proper balance in the use of parliamentary time.
I assume that the first question on the allocation of time in the clerk's paper is there because concerns have been raised on the issue. The question is important, particularly with respect to committee reports and inquiries, a good example of which is the Enterprise and Culture Committee's business growth inquiry, which concerns us all and will—one hopes—support the Scottish Executive's top priority of raising the Scottish economy's long-term growth rate. It would be a great shame if that committee's report was not aired, challenged and thoroughly debated in a plenary meeting of the Parliament. Perhaps findings that are contrary to current public policy would be discussed.
Everybody says that a lot of excellent work is done in committees and, notably, in committee inquiries, but I return to what Iain McMillan said about output—the output of an excellent piece of committee inquiry work is not always obvious from the outside. It seems to me that there should be a mechanism so that the norm is that, if a committee conducts a substantial inquiry, whatever output it is important to feed into the wider process will be fed into a plenary session.
I will add a practical example to what has been said. On 14 September, there was an Executive-led debate on the tendering of Caledonian MacBrayne services. Prior to that debate, the Local Government and Transport Committee had carried out a detailed inquiry on the issue, which involved many external contributors. However, there seemed to be no way in which the inquiry could dovetail into the debate. The committee's inquiry would have provided information for members for the debate, but where it fitted into the political process was not visible to those of us who had participated in it. We would like such matters to be considered a little more.
I want to pursue what Chris Ballance said and cheat slightly by introducing another possibility. It has been pointed out to me that 10-minute rule bills, which enable members to raise issues, represent one way in which Westminster's procedures are possibly better than those of the Scottish Parliament. Such bills never get through, but debates on them are more substantial than members' business debates. If there was such a process in the Scottish Parliament, substantive issues could be raised and debated during the 9-to-5 day and perhaps the Executive or a committee would take note of what had been said and pursue a proposal if it seemed to be well supported.
Are there any other mechanisms through which members could pursue issues more vigorously? It is understandable that members' business debates are often on local issues—that is fine, as such issues are an important part of our work—but how can members focus on general national issues more solidly than they are allowed to do in members' business debates? Members are never allowed to tell the Executive to do anything in such debates, so the debates tend to be a bit anodyne. Do visitors or colleagues have a view on that?
I want to pick up on what Chris Ballance said about members' business debates. Those debates are often far better than the main debate of the day, but they miss the main radio coverage and threaten to miss the main television coverage.
Perhaps members' business debates could be promoted from the later slot to one earlier in the day if the motion attracted signatures and support from members of other parties. If a motion had to attract 10 signatures, a major party could simply corral 10 people to sign it, but the Parliamentary Bureau could consider promoting the debate to an earlier slot if a member who had proposed it had to get support from other parties.
I heard what you said about 10-minute rule bills, but I covered Westminster for six years and they were completely ignored.
Having had some experience of 10-minute rule bills at Westminster, I think that we would support the introduction of a similar mechanism in the Scottish Parliament. It is a good campaigning tool, which allows MPs and interest groups to form relationships around specific campaigning issues. I am not sure whether it would have more teeth than a members' business debate but, if it did, that would be beneficial.
Is a 10-minute rule bill voted on?
I think that it is.
And is the vote whipped?
I think that it can be. The Government can ensure that the bill is not passed. Members who use the procedure are sort of flying a kite.
In my experience, too many members' business debates are a bit motherhood and apple-pie-ish. People like me feel very good when something close to us—even our organisation's week in the year—gets a bit of extra publicity and when a succession of members get up to say how wonderful our organisation is. However, I am not terribly sure that that is a good use of parliamentary time. There seems to be a reluctance for members' business debates to touch on controversial issues. I wonder whether that is too great a reluctance.
A potential solution would be to change the nature of members' business debates. I am not convinced that having a debate in which a whipped vote is taken would change anything. The benefit of members' business debates is that members can explore their thoughts and ideas without having to vote on a motion. There is more potential for blue-sky thinking.
Perhaps we should use the members' business debates for purposes other than having motherhood-and-apple-pie discussions or saying that something is a terrible disease that we really should do something more about, although we do not know what we should do about it. Members' business debates have become a question of what disease we will talk about this week or what national day it is—if I dare say that, as someone who has just had a members' business debate on a national day. Nobody stays unless they have a particular interest and we all fall into the trap of having a debate just because the subject is worthy.
Rather than a member lodging a proposal for a member's bill on something that they have not thought through and which cannot do what it says on the tin, perhaps—if we want a serious debate—they should discuss the issue in members' business debates, when we can consider how to take the issue forward and where the consensus lies. There might also be the opportunity to move the issue on to a committee from there. That is just an idea. I am interested in how members' business debates are perceived from the outside.
What you suggest would be very helpful. We would probably have to convert the Parliamentary Bureau, which, in my view, has totally subverted and debased the idea of members' business debates. We would have to take the bureau on. I do not think that a vote is essential, but we should be allowed to talk about important and controversial issues.
If a member wants their motion to be selected for a members' business debate, the written or unwritten requirements seem to be that there must be a degree of consensus on it and that it must have wide support across the political spectrum. That is why we get the kind of debate that has been mentioned. We would need to change the rules of engagement, whether by persuasion or some other mechanism. Attendance at members' business debates is—with a few honourable exceptions—very low, as the debates tend to be of a constituency or local interest and about something on which everybody agrees anyway.
I am interested to know how the outside organisations think we can improve the kind of discussion that takes place in members' business debates. Such debates should not be about legislation, Executive business or non-Executive business; they should be about members putting forward ideas and trying to initiate legislation, but in a more considered way than has perhaps been the case in the past.
Without turning that around, I think that what happens in members' business debates must sit to a fair degree in our elected members' hands. Members are not short of opinions, or of the ability to access civic society's and others' views. I suggest that if the Parliamentary Bureau is involved, that is very much a matter for elected members to address. The principles that apply, to which all of us from other organisations have referred, allow quite a lot of flexibility in applying pressure to have the issues to which Karen Gillon referred raised properly. Those of us from outside Parliament expect it to be possible for controversial issues to be developed. The procedures are an internal matter.
That is helpful.
In relation to what Bruce McFee said, the rules are that a subject must either be local or have cross-party support.
That leads to the same outcome.
Does that have to lead to the same outcome? Are not there issues on which the consensus throughout Scotland is that we need to do more? Back benchers from all political parties could consider that. Before we can introduce legislation, some issues in the business community or in civic society must need wider debate. We have been guilty of not debating such issues widely enough and of becoming politically entrenched before we have had decent debate.
That is a battle with the Parliamentary Bureau for another day.
I am interested in hearing whether there are issues that are worthy of further consideration out there.
There is probably a role for elected members, and for bodies such as the STUC to work more proactively with elected members, to identify subjects that could be developed. We react to much of the business that takes place in Parliament, as opposed to sitting down to take a more strategic view.
One issue that appeared on my radar only recently is the proposed Forth road and rail bridge, which was discussed in a members' business debate last week. That involves massive issues and there is no broad consensus on the way forward, although it is understood that the matter must be dealt with. Such issues are important and it is good that they are debated. That is the only debate that I have seen promoted recently.
I have much sympathy with the questions that Karen Gillon poses. It is right for a legislature to have in place procedures that allow members to raise issues such as those to which she referred, although I do not know how space would be created for that or what procedures would be involved—I am not a parliamentarian. As I said in my opening statement, those are matters for people who understand such issues and who work with and manage them day to day.
Issues that require legislative correction rarely arise in the world of business. I am not saying that it never happens; it does, but business is, by and large, minimalist in its approach to legislation, to be honest. We like to be left alone to get on with what we are good at, which is creating wealth and employment for our shareholders, stakeholders and the country.
My point arises from the discussion about whether a debate must be general or about legislation. The Scottish Parliament has got the balance right between legislation and open debates, in a way that Westminster has not. The CSG went down the road of suggesting that members' bills should be serious proposals rather than simply a way to ventilate matters because of the possibility of public disquiet and confusion. Westminster members introduce 10-minute rule bills and private members' bills knowing for certain that those bills have not the faintest chance of getting within 100 miles of the statute book, but that is not generally understood by people whose hopes may have been raised. They will think that the issue is not simply being ventilated but addressed in legislation.
It would be an error for the Scottish Parliament to go down the road of pretendy legislation or of holding members' business debates on subjects that might be turned into mock legislation. On the other hand, as Karen Gillon said, there may be subjects on which the gap between legislating on that issue and ventilating it is small. When a member raises an issue, he or she is not saying that they have the solution or that the solution is necessarily legislative. As Iain McMillan said, it may simply be worth ventilating the issue and putting the question to the Executive in a different fashion. The balance is still too heavily in favour of Executive-led debates and Executive-led time, however.
I want to reinforce the point that Graham Blount made about taking a risk-averse attitude to controversial issues. As Brian Taylor said, the focus is still too much in favour of responding to the Executive's agenda. We hoped that one of the strengths of the Scottish Parliament would be that it would take the opportunity to debate issues that are more controversial. I, like others, am not sure whether I am in a position to suggest the appropriate procedures that would be needed to achieve that, but such debates would enhance Parliament.
We are trying to get through reasonably quickly—
Is consensus emerging on whether reports on committee inquiries should be debated in Parliament? I am not sure whether witnesses know about the bidding process under which committees bid against one another for plenary time. Sometimes, by the time a committee has secured a debate, the inquiry report is slightly out of date. When a committee has produced a report, should time be allocated within a reasonable period for the report to be debated in Parliament and progressed as a result?
Witnesses indicated agreement.
Good. Thank you. I suggest that we run together the third and fourth questions in the section on the length of time for debates. Should we have fewer but longer debates and should we have fewer but longer speeches? What do witnesses feel about that? It can be argued that, at Westminster, MPs go on for far too long whereas, at Holyrood, MSPs do not go on for long enough.
The answer would depend on the subject matter and the degree to which an MSP knows the subject. It is neither right nor relevant for a member who is not on top of a subject to speak on it for a long time—indeed, to do so is a waste of time. On the other hand, if an MSP has knowledge and understanding of a subject or experience of an issue, it is right and proper that the member be given more time. I accept that it is difficult for Parliament to manage that—who should make such judgments, for example—but tensions between the depth and width of the debate could be resolved in that way.
I broadly agree with Iain McMillan. The STUC would like fewer debates, but with more time given to the members who participate. For example, one of my colleagues attended a debate last week. He left the Parliament a bit deflated, despite having a keen interest in the subject of the debate. He felt that the debate did not go on for long enough and that members were not given enough time to speak, particularly after the opening speeches. There should be fewer, but higher-quality debates, and more time should be allocated to them.
It is difficult to categorise debates—the phrase that I will use is debates of different sorts. It is difficult to say that a debate of one sort should have a particular time allocation and that a different allocation should be given to debates of another sort. The question is slightly more subtle that that, but it should be possible to distinguish one sort of debate from the other.
The 5 pm decision time sometimes causes problems. A debate must last until 5 pm, but there are occasions when the debate does not justify the time that it has been allocated. I am not entirely sure how that sort of thing can be predicted, however.
When there is time pressure, our preference would be still to allow a reasonable time for each MSP. That would cut the number of people who speak, rather than cutting speeches down to three or, on occasion, even two minutes, which I do not think is acceptable.
Time is getting on. I invite all our witnesses to air any matter that they feel has not yet been adequately aired: those comments can be constructive, destructive or they can be bees in people's bonnets. We will then wrap things up.
I mentioned at the beginning the amount of notice that is given to witnesses who are asked to attend committee meetings. I know that we have covered that in response to some of the committee's questions. There is also the question of having different options for dates for giving evidence. Another issue is the amount of written evidence that is submitted to committees.
I will contrast two things to try to illustrate the two ends of the spectrum. I have given evidence to the House of Commons Scottish Affairs Committee on a number of occasions. Written evidence would be requested some months before the inquiry in question. When oral evidence was requested following examination of the written evidence, a number of possible dates were given so that people could co-ordinate their diaries.
On the last occasion when I gave evidence to the Scottish Affairs Committee, the meeting lasted three and a half hours and the questioning was extremely probing and thorough. I have found that witnesses at Scottish parliamentary committees are sometimes given as little as 10 days' notice for submitting evidence in writing and we are given one day and one time when the committee is due to meet. On the day of the committee meeting, I have given evidence, with other individuals giving evidence on the same subject. Overall, time has not been available to go into the issues and to explain the detail.
I am not saying that the Scottish Affairs Committee's procedures offer the best solution. One could argue that the House of Commons committees give too much time for people to submit written evidence, and that they go to too great lengths to try to co-ordinate people's diaries. I am certainly not inviting any of the committees of the Scottish Parliament to give me three and a half hours with them, but members can appreciate the contrast that I am making. There should be room somewhere in the middle to give people more notice and a choice of dates, and perhaps to go into matters in more detail and with greater thoroughness.
We have been coming to the Parliament and engaging with it, but the next stage is to widen the engagement of individual trade union members and other unions. Without talking about the location of the Parliament, some of the facilities around it make that quite difficult. If people are to be brought together for a committee meeting, they will come along and will want to have a discussion, but there might be two or three different people giving evidence at one time. We have used some of the facilities of the Scottish Civic Forum. I do not know whether other organisations also face this problem, but the geography of the Parliament sometimes makes it difficult to get people together for those useful discussions. Also people might, quite naturally, be nervous about coming to give evidence to parliamentary committees. I am not sure whether other groups face similar problems.
Are you talking about provision of space?
Yes, it is a matter of space. We are talking about resources, space and meeting opportunities. It is not always appropriate for people to go to the Tun, for example. We are talking about the existence of facilities around the Parliament that might help people to engage better.
My colleagues have reminded me that I should not leave without lodging the customary BBC whine about the standard of broadcasting, in particular the sound and pictures from committees. Broadcasting is fine from the chamber, but I am told—I can see it for myself—that broadcasts from committee room 1, where the light is behind the committee, can sometimes white out the member who is speaking, which is a serious problem. The sound is not always clear because sometimes mikes are left open so that one can hear mumbling in the background.
I would like to address a couple of matters that were discussed earlier. The point that I made about Executive debates being bland and dull applies equally—perhaps not to the same extent but in some manner—to debates that are led by the formal Opposition parties; they can be just as dull. Perhaps debates should deal with issues of public relevance, and perhaps the test of that is cross-party support on members' business and debates being committee-led. That opinion is derived from evidence from public people.
The problem with speeches is not their quantity or duration, but their quality. Perhaps the convener could set a test: there is a splendid BBC programme called "Just a Minute" in which one is allowed to carry on only as long as one does not hesitate, deviate or repeat. In my experience, hesitation in speeches—although none that have been made by members of the committee—is endemic, and repetition is pretty well what they do. They propose a point, they say what they have said, and then repeat what they have just said. They then emphasise it for the benefit of those of us who have difficulty in understanding the language. Members could speak to the subjects more quickly. Perhaps they should be given extra time—as long they were not hesitating, deviating or repeating.
We will certainly pass that on.
I would like to make a point about speeches. I have empathy with the Rev Graham Blount's point about a great many two-minute speeches not being helpful, but I would be concerned about Iain McMillan's suggestion that people should be judged on the basis of knowledge. One wonders how such a judgment might be made. The Scottish Civic Forum is very supportive of the degree of pluralism in the Scottish Parliament.
We would be concerned to ensure that all MSPs have an opportunity to make speeches and to contribute to debates. We would be delighted to welcome the STUC to the Scottish Civic Forum premises but, unfortunately, they are likely to disappear at the end of next month because of our funding situation. However, we would be delighted to provide space for the STUC so that it can prepare for committee meetings.
I would like to make a general point of encouragement. Consultation is a fundamental element of power sharing. Power sharing also means that when committees reach conclusions after consultation, the more that can be fed back to those whom they consulted the better. I would apply that particularly to the work of the Procedures Committee and what might flow from it.
Parliament requires esteem, but there are people who are very eager, when the opportunity arises, to find a reason for not giving it esteem. Therefore, the fullest explanation of changes in procedure would be helpful to the wider community. That has to do with what "family friendly" means. I strongly support the concept, but it is easily converted by some people into, "Well, you get home at 5, unlike the rest of us who may work until 7 or later." I would encourage the whole process of communication.
I would like to pick up on what John Park said about the time organisations have to consult their members internally and therefore, one would hope, to give better quality evidence. Time constraints put the onus on one or two people to put their heads together to draft evidence. However, if decent amounts of time were given, a much wider range of expertise could be tapped into, which would allow organisations to offer better-quality evidence.
It is all about the way in which evidence is taken. I welcome the attempt this morning to try to change the format—physically and otherwise—of evidence sessions. That has been quite helpful. There is a place for giving someone such as Iain McMillan and people from the Executive a decent and fairly intensive going over on their evidence.
As long as we can join in.
There are also occasions when it would be more appropriate to have a slightly longer timeframe with a diverse group of people sharing with committees, as in this meeting. It would be good if committees could be more imaginative about doing things in different ways for different occasions, depending on the kind of evidence and on who is giving it. We do not want people to be unduly intimidated. Some people will not be so practised in giving evidence as Iain McMillan is, for example, and they might feel intimidated because they fear that they could get some sort of intensive doing over.
That is a constructive point on which to end. Without taking a vote, I think that everyone would agree that this morning's format has worked quite well and that it is suitable for particular occasions. I thank witnesses for the constructive ideas that they have produced. Please let us know if you have any arrière-pensées on the subject.
I have those every day, Donald.
Indeed. Life consists of failing to ask the right questions—I have spent many years doing that. Do think about the meeting on your way home on the bus. If you wish, you can then contact the clerk to say, "You really should do something about X." That would be helpful.
The session has been very good. I appreciate witnesses giving up their time to help us. We will go on to grapple with the problems that we have discussed, but I would now like to grapple with some coffee for four minutes. We can grapple with the rest of the agenda after that. We will resume promptly at half past 11.
Meeting suspended.
On resuming—