There are two papers that relate to the review of parliamentary time. One is a general summary of evidence received. The other was prepared by the clerk and deals with a specific aspect of the issue—the selection of speakers and speaking times. At our previous meeting, we agreed that this was such a big subject that we would take it in chunks, that the clerk would summarise all the points relevant to a particular chunk and submit a report, and that we would progress those parts of it that we wished to progress. This is the first example of a report covering a particular area. In my view, it does so quite well. I am content with this way of proceeding, but if other members have concerns about the general procedure, they may express them. There are no comments, so the clerk seems to have been given a pass mark for his report.
To which paper are you referring, convener?
The second paper, on the selection of speakers and speaking times. On page 6, the clerk has set out in bold type some of the points that arise.
Andrew Mylne has set out the current position. Current practice varies widely from the rules for the Presiding Officers on ensuring balance and the order in which people should be called. Having worked with the whips, I am familiar with the practice that is set out in annex C to paper PR/S2/06/8/3, whereby we end up with 1.6 open-debate speakers. We usually know who the 0.6 is, but we are not sure about the 1. Practice has grown up in a more rigid structure than was intended when the rules were drawn up.
That is helpful. There is obviously a conflict between allowing flexibility in the number of speakers and in the length of speeches, and having set voting times and going by the clock.
We have to address the issue of Opposition time that is split into two different debates, which causes real pressure. The only times that I recall being given only four minutes to speak in a debate were during such debates, which seem to be a key pinchpoint. Jeremy Purvis's comments on that are referred to in paper PR/S2/06/8/2. We should address the issue, because it seems that people are inevitably left with too little time to speak in such debates—certainly in the open debate.
On behalf of the Opposition parties, I have to say that it is essential that it is left to Opposition parties to decide how to use the small amount of time that is allocated to them. It can be annoying that the debates are rather short, but it is essential that Opposition parties are able to air the issues that are priorities to them in the limited time that is available to them. For that reason, the current practice makes the best of a bad decision. I defend the right of Opposition parties to allocate their time as they see fit.
It depends whether one thinks that the time belongs to the Opposition or to the Parliament and whether its purpose is to allow an issue to be debated or to give a political party a chance to make a statement. I would argue that if the time belongs to the Parliament, it provides an opportunity to debate an issue. I would make the same criticism of the Executive when it debates anodyne motions that mean very little to anyone that I would make of the Opposition when it tries to cram into 90 minutes or less debates on two very complex subjects, as happened last Thursday morning, when the Trident weapons system and nuclear power were debated in the same slot. I do not think that that does the Parliament justice. I understand why Opposition members are precious about their time but, as a committee, we should consider whether what is put up for debate is genuinely a debate or whether it is something else.
We need to discuss the issue. When we fell into the habit of holding split debates towards the end of the first session of Parliament, some of the larger parties were critical of the parties that introduced that format. Although I accept that the Opposition parties have an absolute right to decide what subjects they want to debate, my perception is that since they have begun to hold split debates on Thursday mornings, interest among members in general has fallen. Unless a member has the opportunity to be involved in such debates, they tend not to turn up in the chamber, with the result that the debates are less lively and less interesting.
What has been said underlines my point. I accept what Karen Gillon said about Opposition parties cramming in two debates on complex subjects in the same morning. I am sure that the Greens would have loved to have had two mornings to debate Trident and nuclear power, which are important issues.
I am slightly confused about why we are considering speaking times first. We are starting at the back rather than at the front. We need to begin with a fundamental consideration of what the parliamentary week should look like. We cannot sort out speaking times until we know what kind of jigsaw we are trying to fit the speaking times into. We have a nice paper on speaking times, but I do not know what shape the jigsaw of the parliamentary week is supposed to be. Until we grapple with the decisions about how the parliamentary week will look—whether we have a system of interpellations and so on—we cannot decide about speaking times, which are a subsidiary issue. They might be fundamental to members, as we want to know how long we will get to speak, but we cannot sort that out until we have sorted out point A. This seems a bit back to front to me.
To play devil's advocate, the fundamental issue that we must address at the beginning is whether the principle of family-friendly hours is sacrosanct or whether that is an inappropriate restriction. Many of us may hold one view but may be prepared to support the other. When we have made that decision, we will know exactly what sacrifices need to be made to fit in with the decision.
I accept the substance of what seems to be the committee's feeling. Without getting too heavily involved, I think that there are some points on which we could give a steer to the clerk on the path that we should go down when we pursue the issues in future discussions. For example, page 6 of paper PR/S2/06/8/3 mentions closing speeches. Do we need closing speeches? In my view, they are a waste of time and we should have more time for back-bench speeches. I am interested in members' views on that. The smaller parties should have a right to a speaker. At present, a speaker usually gets called, but they should have a right to have a member put the party's official line. They may not get a second speech, but they should have a right to one speech rather than just a hope of one.
Those would all be good points if the final decision is that we adhere to a pretty strict timetable, but we have not taken that decision yet. Many of those issues would not arise if we had a more open timetable. I agree with Karen Gillon that we must take the fundamental decisions first and then work out the details. At present, we have not made that decision. Andrew Mylne said that he is producing a paper on interpellations, which would be useful. I am open to persuasion on the matter, but I see interpellations as a possible solution to the issue of non-Executive business. Indeed, such a system may provide an answer to the underrepresentation of Executive back benchers in general debate. The issue is worth while exploring and would wipe out a heck of a lot of the issues that are raised in the paper.
The general view seems to be that we will park paper PR/S2/06/8/3, which is helpful, until we consider a paper on parliamentary hours and so on, into which the present paper fits.
I am interested in having a discussion with the Executive on interpellations, which are an interesting concept. I am interested in hearing the Executive's view on whether that concept could be implemented. The Executive's view would not make me decide one way or the other, but I do not want to charge off into the distance with something that the Executive parties could vote down in Parliament if the Executive did not support it. We should get into dialogue sooner rather than later. Interpellations are an interesting option that I am keen for us to explore further.
Would the best option not be to prepare the paper and then ask for comments from the Executive?
Yes.
I do not care how we do it.
We have to engage individual members on this as well as the Executive. It might be useful to suggest a possible structure.
Some time ago, we wrote to the Executive saying that we thought that there should be an experiment whereby the two parts of stage 3 were separated, so that the amendments would be dealt with one day and the final stage 3 debate would be dealt with another day. The minister has written back saying that she does not think that there is a suitable bill for that experiment. However, there is a bill that is programmed for a full day, and I think that we could respond to the minister saying that we think that the Police, Public Order and Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill would be a suitable bill on which to try that. The Executive recognises the bill as an important one, so a full day might be taken up just with amendments and the final debate might be programmed for another day. Would it be reasonable for us to reply to the minister with that suggestion, which is in line with our previous suggestion?
My recollection is not the same as yours, convener. As I recall, we suggested that the Executive should look to have the whole of the stage 3 proceedings across two days, to allow more time for amendments, not to have the final debate on a second day. The point was to find out whether, by allowing more time for amendments, the bill would be more thought through. The Parliament has already made the decision to postpone a final stage 3 debate, and we have moved on from that. The final debate on the Interests of Members of the Scottish Parliament Bill will be taken on a separate day, once members have had time to consider the amendments. I may have got it wrong, but I thought that we were looking for an extension of the time to consider amendments at stage 3.
Well, so long as there is more time. Are you suggesting that there should be a day and a half for amendments? What would we offer?
It is hard to tell. If the committees say that there are not enough amendments to sustain the debate, it would be difficult for us to say that we should have a debate just because time has been allocated for one. The Bankruptcy and Diligence etc (Scotland) Bill may require more than day's debate, and there will be major issues for debate at stage 3 of the Planning etc (Scotland) Bill. However, I do not know enough about the detail of those bills to say. There may be a need for more time to discuss tail docking at stage 3 of the Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Bill, although I do not know whether having a huge debate on that would change members' entrenched positions anyway. I am not sure whether any of those bills would be appropriate for the experiment, but other committee members may be more involved and know a bit more about the detail of them.
We can approach the business managers for additional time only if we know that an issue will attract an awful lot of amendments at stage 3. How the Parliament and the committees handle their legislative role has changed and the debate on whether there is enough time to discuss amendments at stage 3 has moved on. In the previous session, hundreds of amendments were lodged at stage 3 but, judging by how we have dealt with legislation during the current session, I think that the number of amendments that are now lodged at stage 3 has decreased because we are becoming more experienced parliamentarians and are able to deal with the issues at stage 2. Like Karen Gillon, I do not know whether the Police, Public Order and Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill will attract an awful lot of stage 3 amendments. We cannot arbitrarily pick a bill for a trial over a day and a half. A decision must be made as we deal with a bill.
In some circumstances, there is a case for taking a day and a half or even two days to complete stage 3. That has been amply demonstrated. With hindsight at least, we can all say that stage 3 of the Licensing (Scotland) Bill required extra time.
That hits the nail on the head about stage 3. Timetabling at stage 3 is our single biggest problem. In the past year, we have seen several examples of bad decision making or embarrassing procedure as a result of timetabling. The solution might be to hold the debate on the motion that a bill be passed on a different day from the amendments, as we said, and to end timetabling motions for stage 3, so that discretion would lie with the Presiding Officer to decide what needs to be debated and how much time should be allocated—in effect we would be continuing with timetabling, but on an informal basis.
In the short term, is it reasonable to pursue Cathie Craigie's suggestion that we should write to tell the Minister for Parliamentary Business that we cannot comment on any specific bill, but if dealing with amendments and the final stage 3 debate in one meeting is likely to be a problem with any bill, the Parliamentary Bureau should timetable two days for stage 3? We can keep up the pressure without specifying a bill. Would that help?
As Bruce McFee and Alex Johnstone said, a longer-term issue agitates many of us. We will try to pursue that but, for the moment, we will keep the ball in play.
Next
Members' Bills