Procedures Committee, 11 Jun 2003

Meeting date: Wednesday, June 11, 2003

Official Report 123KB pdf

---

First Minister's Question Time

Item 5 is on the correspondence from the Presiding Officer about question time. Some aspects of question time are covered in the founding principles report, so perhaps we should consider the matter in two parts. There are wider issues about the structure and format of question time that we should consider in the longer run, but there is clearly a desire to consider the length and timing of First Minister's question time at an early stage. Perhaps that could be done as a discrete piece of work.

I am slightly concerned about the detail of the discussion that has already taken place. The proposals seem to be presented as a fait accompli. I do not have any particular problems with question time, but I am slightly concerned that the letter from George Reid says that he has asked Murray Tosh to consider longer-term issues with a view to consulting the parties before bringing proposals to the Procedures Committee. My concern is that that process is taking place outwith the committee. If there is to be a parliamentary Procedures Committee, such discussions and deliberations should be part of that committee's remit. I would like more information from George Reid or Murray Tosh about the discussion that is taking place so that the committee can take a view on how to work with them in developing the Parliament's procedures in the months to come.

I endorse what Karen Gillon says. We should ask the convener and the clerk to liaise with the Presiding Officer's office to find out what Murray Tosh's role is. As Karen Gillon said, the Procedures Committee should be initiating such discussions.

First Minister's question time seems to be the simpler of the two issues to decide. I do not have a problem with the suggestion that we move to an earlier time. That would cut down on the rattle that we hear in the chamber at about 2.50 pm on a Thursday when the anoraks and carrier bags start to move as the young people have to go back to school. I have received feedback from school parties that have been unable to see the whole of question time as a result of time scales. In order to engage with young people, I would welcome a change.

We would also have to consult members and the media that cover question time to find out whether a change can be accommodated in schedules. People like to come to watch First Minister's question time, but there is also a wider audience. Could we have guidance on how committees would usually consult members of the public on such matters?

Perhaps the clerk would like to say something about that.

It is up to the committee how widely it wants to cast the net in such circumstances. It is suggested in the paper that, if the Presiding Officer's time scale is to be met, there is realistically only a week to seek views in correspondence from others in addition to those that the committee already has. There is probably a limit to what can be done in that time frame. However, if the committee believes that it should get views not just from MSPs, but from broadcasters, for example, that can certainly be done. In such a time frame, I am not sure how realistic it would be to get views from the public, but we could certainly consider what we could do within the constraints.

There is no reason to stop the move to a slot before lunch time on Thursdays. From the evidence with which we have been presented, that seems reasonable. However, it is obvious that we must take other people, such as the broadcasting media and the rest of our colleagues, with us.

The timing and length of First Minister's question time is important, given what Mark Ballard said earlier. As George Reid's paper says, it may be preferable to move from 20 minutes to 30 minutes to allow a wider range of questions to be asked, particularly by back benchers. There would be no difficulty in doing so, provided that we go through a quick consultation process.

A bit of suck it and see is involved. If the proposals do not work, why should that be the end of the journey for First Minister's question time? Perhaps we need to get things done, find out whether the proposals work and see where we should go from there.

I want to take up what Karen Gillon said. As a new member, I am finding it quite difficult to get to grips with the respective competences of the committee, the Parliamentary Bureau, the Presiding Officer and the corporate body. If I am correct, the timing and length of First Minister's question time are matters for the Procedures Committee, but who is called in First Minister's question time is a matter for the Presiding Officer. The two issues are related.

Remarks were made about back-bench members of the old parties having opportunities to speak and to ask questions at First Minister's question time. If we want a First Minister's question time that includes time for the leaders of the new parties to ask the First Minister questions but that does not erode back benchers' time in putting questions to him, we must consider matters that may not strictly be within the committee's competence. The two issues that I mentioned are very much related, although I understand that George Reid or Murray Tosh may take the matter forward.

It is suggested that written submissions should be made by Wednesday 18 June, which is a tight time scale. It has been mentioned that, in respect of the CSG report, many important issues were discussed, but perhaps not as many MSPs were engaged in the process as there could have been, as they were not sure about the time scale in which the proposals were being considered. I hope that we advertise the 18 June deadline as widely as possible. I know that other members have already raised the issue of First Minister's question time in the chamber and I hope that all members will be made fully aware of the time scale.

I have a couple of practical points. I suggest that an e-mail be sent to every MSP asking for a response by 18 June to the key questions, which are whether First Minister's question time should be moved and whether it should last for half an hour. I suggest that we ask for views from the broadcast media and for general comments on the Parliament's website so that, if people have a burning desire to make their views known, they will be able to do so. We can deal with those suggestions in the time that we have.

People will respond quickly if something really matters to them. The same people would respond and say the same things even if we set a time frame of five weeks. The issue that we are dealing with is not so fundamental as to require 12 to 13 weeks of consultation. We need to get things moving; we need to conclude the report by the end of the summer recess so that we can have a parliamentary debate as soon as possible and put the new format into effect.

If things are to change, we must start the process now. However, evidence from the broadcasters and the public might show that they do not want First Minister's question time to be changed and that only people in our wee group think that the issue is important—other people might be happy with how things are at present.

We have to recognise that an extension of First Minister's question time from 20 to 30 minutes will not accommodate more back-bench questions as well as questions from the leaders of the new parties. I would like to open the issue further and ask how long First Minister's question time should be. As George Reid indicated in his letter, two of the party leaders thought that it should last longer than half an hour.

I understand where Mark Ballard is coming from, but we have a problem. First Minister's question time is linked materially to other issues about time in the chamber. If we extend for more than 10 minutes beyond the current business time, we will get into an argument about the shape of the new business week for the Parliament. Indeed, we have to have that debate and we have to understand what the business week will be. Are we going to have longer days on Wednesdays and shorter lunch times? If we extend First Minister's question time by more than 10 minutes, that will start to impinge on the wider argument.

As Karen Gillon said, we need to make a decision soon and put the new arrangement in place to find out how it works. Inevitably, that will have an impact on how we examine other issues and the wider reforms that are required. Only at that later stage would it be appropriate to re-examine whether what we have done with First Minister's question time has worked.

At this stage, I prefer to carry out a simple consultation on the proposals that the Presiding Officer has asked us to consider as a matter of urgency—an extension to 30 minutes of First Minister's question time and a decoupling of First Minister's question time from questions to other ministers.

We might decide that one of the first things that the committee should do is to conduct an overall review of the question time format, albeit on a slightly longer time scale. We might consider whether there should be specific ministerial question times and how questions are selected. We might also consider whether the length of question time is sufficient to meet the needs of the Parliament.

I suggest that we decouple the wider review of First Minister's question time, which was Mark Ballard's point, from the interim measure that the Presiding Officer has proposed. However, we have to consult other members on the proposal. Is the committee happy with that?

I hate to disagree with you, convener, but I would like to deal with the proposal to extend First Minister's question time to 45 minutes. Members are not stupid and they realise the implications of extending to 45 minutes. If members wish to make that proposal, they should be allowed to do so. Similarly, other members should be able to say that they think 30 minutes is long enough. We need to make question time meaningful. If we make it 45 minutes or an hour, it will drag on and everybody will try to ask a question. Members are not stupid. Those members who want to extend to 45 minutes can put that into the discussion; others can say what they think and we can make a decision based on that evidence.

I do not dispute that, but we should consult on extending First Minister's question time to 30 minutes. If people believe that 30 minutes is not long enough or that it is too long, they have the right to say so. That is the point of consulting.

I take on board the point that Karen Gillon makes. However, paragraph 40 of the paper on time in the chamber states:

"The intention would not be that Party Leaders be afforded any further time and nor for FMQT to be moved from its current Thursday afternoon slot."

We have more party leaders now.

That was the view of the previous Procedures Committee. The Presiding Officer has requested that we consider extending First Minister's question time to 30 minutes and decoupling it from question time, so that it takes place at a different time of the week. It would be for the Parliamentary Bureau to determine when it should happen.

We are seeking time for extra questions, but because there are more party leaders there will be no extra questions for other members.

We do not want to get into that debate at present. We want to have a short discussion of the length of First Minister's question time and whether it should take place after question time or separately. Those are the two issues that we are considering at the moment. In a wider review of question time issues, we will need to consider the format of question time and the matter of proportionality. If we give all the party leaders a fixed slot, we will exclude other members from having a fair share of First Minister's question time. However, until we conduct a wider review of question time, the Presiding Officer should retain his discretion over who gets to ask questions when. If we get into that issue, we will not complete our inquiry this side of Christmas, let alone in time for the summer recess.

I propose that we conduct a brief inquiry into extending the length of First Minister's question time to 30 minutes and changing the standing order that requires First Minister's question time to follow question time. We should put a general request for views on those proposals to all MSPs by e-mail and issue a press notice seeking wider views, especially from the broadcasters. If the committee agrees to that proposal, I hope that members will also agree for me to sign off the press notice so that it can be issued immediately.

Can we write directly to the broadcast media? I am worried that a press notice might not obtain the desired response in the time available. We should make our request directly.

That is the intention behind what I said. We should ask for responses to be submitted by Wednesday 18 June, which would give people a week to respond and allow the clerks to compile a report for a meeting of the committee the following week, at which we could agree the basis of a draft report. We will have to meet during the recess to sign off the report. I hope that the Parliamentary Bureau will accept our request for a debate in the chamber on the Wednesday following the summer recess, so that any changes to standing orders that we agree can come into effect from the second week of the new term, which is within the time scale that George Reid has requested. Do members agree to that timetable?

Members indicated agreement.

I ask members to remain for a couple of minutes after the meeting to discuss some diary issues.

Meeting closed at 11:02.