Agenda item 3—on First Minister's question time—should be relatively straightforward. We have a note—PR/S2/04/1/1—from the clerk on the evidence that has been gathered. I draw members' attention to another paper that has been circulated today, which gives a more detailed breakdown of the viewing figures for "Holyrood Live" since the change took place. I would like to get a view from the committee on how successful or otherwise the experiment has been and on how we should go forward. We must also consider how that ties in with our report on the proposed extension to question time. I intend to go through the evidence relatively quickly to see whether there are any questions or whether any clarifications are required. Paragraph 27 of the note from the clerk gives some options for the committee, which we will discuss. Paragraphs 1 to 6 give some background as an introduction. Are there any comments?
How many MSPs responded?
To the report on oral questions? The clerk will check that information and we will come back to it.
My comments refer to paragraphs 11 to 17, because the views of the school groups and the views of the general public were taken in a questionnaire given to people attending question time on certain days. The views expressed are the legitimate views of those people at that time, but had we taken the views of other people who had attended at a different time, I am not sure what the outcomes would have been. Therefore I am not sure how valid the evidence is—other than to say that it represents the valid views of those people. Had people in the gallery been questioned at 2 o'clock, we do not know whether we would have got the same answer. They would have been people in the gallery saying—because they happened to be there—that the time was suitable for them. In saying that, I do not want to downgrade the views of those people, because their views are important. I just do not know how valid they are or how they would compare with views taken by another survey at another time.
That is a fair point. Paragraph 14 makes the same point in general terms.
I totally disagree. We cannot discount—as paragraph 14 does—the views of 462 people who, it would appear to me, are interested in what is happening in the chamber as they took the trouble to come along. I do not want to sign up to paragraph 14. The committee agreed to survey people and we should not say that they are not necessarily representative of the public. They are representative—they come from the public gallery, which has all sorts of people.
No. They are a cross-section of the public who happened to be in the public gallery, but they are not representative of the public.
Those who were surveyed are a cross-section of the public. We did not hand-pick them. Such people go to the visitor centre or arrange to visit through their MSP. They are ordinary men and women from the street who vote for us. They are entitled to have their opinions taken as seriously as those of anybody else are.
I understand what you say but, to be honest, if people who attend question time at 12 o'clock are asked whether having question time at 12 o'clock is suitable for them, they are likely to say yes. We are not finding out from people who were not in the public gallery at 12 o'clock whether that time is suitable for them. All that paragraph 14 says is that we must be careful not to read too much into the responses of people who were present at that time and who said that that time was suitable for them.
The questionnaire that we gave people who were in the public gallery did not ask them only whether they liked First Minister's question time at 12 o'clock. It had a wider scope than that. We did not pick the people who were in the public gallery on the days when the questions were asked. What is the point of the committee consulting almost 500 people if we say that we should not necessarily regard them as representative of the interested public? I certainly would not associate myself with such a comment.
I do not think that that is what paragraph 14 says.
I have described my reading of the paragraph.
The paragraph simply puts a health warning on the interpretation of the survey results.
The paragraph says:
The respondents are representative only of people who attended question time at 12 o'clock. They are not representative of those who could not attend and who might think completely differently. The paragraph is simply a health warning that we should not read too much into statistics that derive from an unrepresentative sample. The sample was of people who happened to be in the public gallery at a particular time.
If questions had been asked before the experiment started, more people would have been available to ask, because more people attended then.
The survey questions are on the back page of the note from the clerks.
I am sorry; I have not looked at them. I did not see the questions.
No one suggests that we should disregard the public's views. Paragraph 14 is in a note by the clerk, not a committee report, and all that it is intended to do is indicate that the views came from people who happened to attend particular sessions, so they are representative of those people but not necessarily of people who could not attend at those times and might have preferred another time. The aim is to achieve balance in the interpretation of the figures.
The point is that if we had wanted to question representative members of the interested public more generally, we would not have done that by surveying only people who were in the gallery at 12 o'clock. However, gathering such views was not the function of our survey. Our survey's function was to find out what people who turned up at 12 o'clock felt, not to find out what the public at large thought. We must be clear about what the questionnaire was about and what it aimed to do.
I approach the subject as a substitute member, so I might have a different perspective. The discussion raises the question why we undertook the survey in the first place if we did not feel that the responses would be representative. There are obviously other ways of testing that opinion to take into account the viewpoints reflected by members around the table. I do not know whether it was the committee or the Parliament that chose to do that, but that was how the committee decided to undertake the survey. I wonder whether that was the right thing to do, but that is how we have gone about it and this is the information presented in it.
The survey was on wider issues about question time; the three questions that are summarised in the paper were part of a larger survey that was carried out to inform our report on question time in general. The timing issue was just one part of the survey, not the whole survey.
I do not want to get bogged down any further. My views are clear. The question was not asked only at the 12 o'clock question time. As far as I can see, the questionnaire was circulated at question time and at First Minister's question time over two meetings. As I said, I do not want to get bogged down, but I want it on the record that I value the opinions of the people who sit in the gallery.
With respect, Cathie, we all value their opinions and nobody is suggesting that we do not. Paragraph 12 indicates that there was a split between those questioned at noon and those questioned in the afternoon. Not surprisingly, those questioned in the afternoon were less in favour of noon than those questioned at noon were. Perhaps that invalidates paragraph 14 to some extent, but I do not want to get bogged down on that at the moment. For information, 47 MSPs in total replied to the questionnaire and 16 gave detailed responses.
Having looked at the questions that were asked, which I had not seen before, I notice that a question was not asked on one of our options: that question time should start at 2 pm. That question was never asked so, as far as I am concerned, that makes the survey completely irrelevant.
The survey is not completely irrelevant. A 2 o'clock start is not ruled out because we did not ask the public that question in the survey.
Why did we not ask them that question?
At that point, we were not considering that as an option.
If that is the case, why did not we have the survey before we had the experiment in the first place?
The survey was conducted as part of the exercise on the review of question times in general, not as part of the review of First Minister's question time. The questions about First Minister's question time were added to the survey because the survey happened to be being conducted—they were additional questions to a wider survey.
I do not want to labour the point, but neither do I want it to be thought that committee members do not see the views of members of the public who did not attend on that day as legitimate and valuable. The views are representative only of the people who were present and manifestly cannot be representative of the general public as a whole. However, the views that were given are certainly representative of those who were there. In that light, they have a value and are legitimate. We did the right thing by conducting the survey.
Paragraph 18 covers the views of the civic participation focus groups. Paragraphs 19 and 20 give views of the BBC and of journalists. I remind members of the additional information from the BBC that has now been circulated.
We have looked at the "Holyrood Live" viewing figures in isolation. However, we should remember that the BBC lunchtime news has an audience of 300,000. If an issue of significant import is raised in First Minister's question time, a 12 o'clock start ensures that it makes it to the news slot at lunch time. The evidence that we have from the BBC on audience participation is weak. We should have had information telling us that on X number of occasions when First Minister's question time was at 12 o'clock there were lunchtime news bulletins that 300,000 people listened to, for example. That would have been a significant factor in weighting the evidence towards a 12 o'clock slot for First Minister's question time, rather than a later slot. Evidence about who was in the public gallery would also have been useful for this part of the exercise and to ensure that we take an evidence-based view.
Paragraph 20 states:
We contacted them through our media office.
Who did we contact?
I do not have the breakdown here, but I presume that we contacted the Lawnmarket lobby.
Okay.
Bruce Crawford has covered many of my points. I am impressed and surprised that the BBC can break down its viewing figures in the way that it has. Other broadcasters have not complained about the shift in time. Programmes such as "Scotland Today" and newspapers also have to be considered when we weigh up the impact that the new time has had on audience figures.
Evidence from participation services has been circulated separately. There are no comments to make on that. Paragraphs 22 to 26 relate to another minor procedural issue, which we might need to address, depending on which decisions we make. Perhaps we can leave that until we make our decisions. If we make certain decisions, we will not have to address the issue, if you see what I mean.
I think that we need to address the issue anyway, because there is a strong possibility that the business motion will contravene rule 5.6 of the standing orders. That is a major issue of parliamentary procedure. We suggested a timetable to the Parliamentary Bureau that contravened rule 5.6. We know that there is an issue with the rule, but we have not communicated that to the bureau.
Given that two business managers are present at the meeting, I am sure that the bureau will be informed of the problem this afternoon. My understanding from the legal advice is that there is not a problem, but that there is an issue about tidying up the rule. If we need to amend the rule, we should do so as part of our report—
I am also concerned that the recommendation that we might make today, based on the evaluation period, would contravene rule 5.6. Either we ask the bureau to continue with the current trial or we ask it to move to some other arrangement. However, whatever we recommend to the bureau should be in line with rule 5.6.
It is for the committee to decide whether it wishes to suggest a change to rule 5.6, so that the half sitting day is a consistent period.
Such a change to the standing orders could not be made before it was debated. As far as I know, there are no plans for the change to be made.
It is for the committee to decide whether we wish to suggest a sitting pattern that would contravene the rule and, if so, whether we might need to amend the rule to reflect that. When we have made decisions about the sitting pattern and the timing of question time, we can consider the consequential effects of those decisions; we do not need to get bogged down on the issue before we have made our decisions.
I understand the point that you are making but, whatever we do, on Thursday there will be a First Minister's question time. This afternoon the bureau will probably lodge a business motion to that effect. However, my reading of rule 5.6.2 of the standing orders, which is clearly laid out—and regardless of what paragraph 25 of the paper states; it seems to try to justify the move—is that, if the bureau proceeds in that way this afternoon, it might be in danger of breaching standing orders. It is amazing that we have got into such a situation. The lawyers might tell us something different, but at present all we have is a narrow description of the situation in three short paragraphs. The paper states clearly that, for the purposes of rule 5.6, a half sitting day is
You will have to take up the issue with the First Minister.
The issue is not for the First Minister; it is not his fault.
The issue would be a point of order.
I am trying to get a decision in principle on when the committee thinks First Minister's question time should be held. We will return to the issue that Bruce Crawford raises, although at present the matter is for the bureau, not the Procedures Committee. Our task is to recommend changes if they are required in the light of proposals that we may make on First Minister's question time. The bureau must decide, based on the advice from its advisers, whether its motion is consistent with standing orders.
Fine.
Surely the issue would have been taken into account when we amended the standing orders to introduce the trial period. Can we ask for advice on that?
We have been operating a trial period. The legal advice is that that is legitimate, but the bureau must clarify the matter with its advisers this afternoon. The matter is not for us. We must determine whether we wish to make permanent changes to the standing orders to take account of other decisions that we make about First Minister's question time.
I would like to add another option to the options in the paper. We have had the trial period for the change to First Minister's question time and we are introducing a trial period for changes to question time—we will debate the recommendations in Parliament in the near future, although I am not sure of the date. I ask the committee to consider running First Minister's question time at 12 o'clock with question time, which will have general questions and themed questions, afterwards. That would give us a picture of the whole system. We could then review the system at the end of May or the middle of April or whenever. That would mean that, when we are getting ready to move business to the new Parliament building, we will have tried and tested all the options. At that point, we can collate the information and evidence about whether the changes are successful and make a decision on that basis.
Whatever pattern we choose for question time, it will have to undergo a trial period. We have agreed that the new format for question time will be trialled.
The options that I would go for would be option C for the trial period—
I suggest that at the moment we stick specifically to considering whether First Minister's question time should remain at its present 12 noon slot or whether it should be moved to an afternoon slot. Once we have made that decision, we can consider the various options and patterns that have been suggested.
I am against the proposal that First Minister's question time should remain at 12 noon.
I am in favour of First Minister's question time remaining at 12 noon.
Jamie, what option would you prefer if you want First Minister's question time to be moved?
I thought that we were only looking at—
We need to decide first on whether we want First Minister's question time to remain at 12 noon; after that, we can consider the options. After all, there are a number of different patterns—
Do you wish me to enlarge on my decision?
If you wish to indicate your reasoning, you can do so.
One of the main reasons is that the viewing figures have slumped dramatically. I just do not think that First Minister's question time is getting across to the public in the way that it was. It is important that the Parliament should be a window for the public; if they are not watching it, the experiment has failed and the system should be changed.
My decision has the same basis as Jamie McGrigor's. However, given the new and different coverage that First Minister's question time receives on lunchtime news broadcasts and from other media, I do not think that the evidence on the viewing figures is clear. Moreover, there is considerable advantage for schools in having First Minister's question time at 12 noon.
What do you think, Bruce?
May I listen to the discussion for a little bit longer?
I do not think that First Minister's question time is working at 12 o'clock. Indeed, I do not believe that it is sensible to have it as the second or third item in the morning's business. It should be the first item of business to reflect its status and the fact that it is televised. Currently, even if the first item of business needs to overrun for entirely legitimate reasons, it has to be curtailed because of a timetable that has been introduced from without by the broadcasters and that says that we have to start First Minister's question time at 12 o'clock. I do not think that it is proper for the Parliament to be beholden to the BBC over when it begins its business. We could get round that problem if First Minister's question time were the first item of business.
The question is significant, because what we decide will have a material effect on what will happen when we get down to Holyrood. Whatever we do now, it must be right by the time we get to Holyrood. Given that, any option that we decide on today will require a trial period until the end of April or the beginning of May to give us another couple of months to decide on a final process before we move to Holyrood. I do not know how we will manage the timetable, but we have to give whatever option we choose a chance to work.
Bruce Crawford has made many helpful comments. The old system was in place for four years, but if we had looked at it after only a few weeks we might have started pressing for a change. It is early days. We should see how the system beds down. I am persuaded by the argument that question time is a bit flat just now and that we need to change it, but we have plans to change it. Let us see how that works out before we go about changing other things. Let us pilot the system. A sensible period of bedding down, with a review in April or May, sounds reasonable to me, so that we get the arrangements right in time for the move to Holyrood.
I will indicate my personal position. Liberal Democrat members support a shift back to the afternoon for First Minister's question time, because they do not believe that the 12 o'clock experiment has worked. I propose to support my members if the issue comes to a vote. However, the majority of committee members—four to three—is clearly in favour of retaining the 12 o'clock time slot, so our report should reflect that. There will be an opportunity for members to indicate their position in a formal vote when we consider the draft report.
I do not know why Bruce Crawford wants more evidence on the figures. Paragraph 19 says that, since First Minister's question time was moved, average viewing figures for "Holyrood Live" have fallen from 46,000 to 18,000. The figures speak for themselves.
I understand the point that Jamie McGrigor makes and, on the basis of the bald figures that we have been given, I would support his position. However, if he looks at—
But we are talking about average figures. One might say, for example, that on 18 September there were 7,000 viewers and on 30 September there were 36,000, which would still mean that the maximum figure was 10,000 less than the average figure under the old system.
However, we do not have any evidence of the impact of the rescheduling of First Minister's question time on viewing figures for the BBC's lunchtime news programmes.
The Executive probably wants to retain the 12 o'clock slot because the First Minister receives a lot of news coverage at lunch time.
Not all of it favourable, it has to be said.
I support Jamie McGrigor's point. We would always expect a fluctuation in viewing figures, depending on the film that was being shown on BBC2—
I think that there is a business programme at lunch time on BBC2.
I mean that the figures depend on what other programmes are being broadcast. If we are looking at average viewing figures, we must expect there to be fluctuations around the average.
I think that the public would be entitled to feel jolly cynical about our deliberations if we did not agree that there has been an enormous drop in viewing figures.
It would be interesting to know what measures were used to calculate the figures. People say that it is done through a panel of people who have a box on their television—I am amazed that such a system could lead to such exact figures about the low audience share. I would be interested to know whether the BBC has a view on the reasons for the large discrepancy in the figures.
I take your point, but the BBC mentions its methodology in its letter to the committee—although I am not sure that that makes the situation any clearer. A supposedly representative sample of viewers is used. I agree that it seems strange that the figures should vary so much from week to week. I am not in a position to be able to say whether the average figure is about right or whether the figures for the upper or the lower limits more accurately reflect the reality.
Should we have a vote on that?
We could have a formal vote now, if members wish to do so. However, today we are just discussing what might go into our report. As everyone has indicated their position on the record, it might be better to have the formal vote at the next meeting, at the draft report stage.
Okay.
We might risk there being some changes of position before the next meeting.
We will come back to the question of the implications of the 12 o'clock time slot for the half sitting day.
I am happy to go along with Bruce Crawford's suggestion that we continue the trial of First Minister's question time from 12 noon to 12.30 pm, with oral questions from 2.30 pm to 3.30 pm on Thursdays.
I do not want to make a recommendation, as I do not agree that First Minister's question time should continue to take place at noon.
Yes, but the majority view of the committee is that it should take place at noon and members—including those who disagree with the majority view—have to take a view about the consequences. If we keep First Minister's question time at 12 o'clock, we have to make a decision about the timing of question time, irrespective of whether we agree with the 12 o'clock decision.
If I have got my maths right, option B—that is, question time on Wednesday afternoon—gives us three slots for debate: 1 hour 55 minutes, 2 hours 30 minutes and 2 hours 30 minutes. If we choose to have question time on Thursday afternoon, the debate slots will be 2 hours 55 minutes, 2 hours 30 minutes and 1 hour 30 minutes. I am concerned about having a debate slot of 1 hour 30 minutes in a Parliament with six parties. In my experience, that time is too squeezed for a debate that will include speeches from the smaller parties.
I appreciate that concern. The two sets of recommendations that we have made would reduce by 30 minutes the overall chamber time that is available for debate and other business. We have taken 10 minutes off for First Minister's question time and another 20 minutes off for question time. We should try to find an additional half hour to compensate for that.
I agree, but if we had decided to have First Minister's question time in the afternoon, that would have been the case anyway.
It depends whether—
I could say that you are changing your argument to suit your case.
We could have one question time on Wednesday and one on Thursday, both starting at 2 o'clock.
If we run the trial until then, the problem is that there will not be enough time to test the solution and change the rules again before we move to Holyrood.
The new arrangement will probably not be introduced until a couple of weeks after the February recess. The debate is likely to be on 11 February, so it will probably not be possible to bring in the new rota until the second week after the recess.
Perhaps our report should reflect some of those issues before the exact timetables are decided.
We can look at that in more detail before our next meeting and try to get an indication of when the experiments should run.
May I ask a question? We are examining the issue as members of the Procedures Committee. Does the advice to us state that there is a problem with the standing orders and that they should be changed to accommodate having First Minister's question time from 12 o'clock until half past 12?
I will defer to the clerk on such matters.
The issue is whether there is an incompatibility in what we have been doing and where that arises. There is nothing about scheduling First Minister's question time at 12 noon that in any way conflicts with the rules. The problem arises—if there is a problem at all—from the combination of doing that and allocating the remainder of the morning to non-Executive business, with the implication that that is counted as one of the 16 half sitting days to which the Opposition parties are entitled. In other words, the problem would occur at the level of the Parliament taking a decision on a Parliamentary Bureau motion to do both those things at once, not at the level of the committee making a recommendation as to when First Minister's questions should take place.
I entirely accept your last premise that, if we need to change the rules to make things work, we should do so. However, we should not change the rules unless there is an absolute need to do so. You said that there was a grey area. I wish that there was a lawyer here to tell me what is grey about rule 5.6.2, which clearly defines a half sitting day. I for one am not in favour of changing the rules unless that is necessary, but you will need to prove that to me.
The problem also affects rule 5.6.1(a), which entitles committees to 12 half sitting days. A committee half sitting day has often been taken as the period after question time. Some committee debates have been given only one and a half or two hours. The issue is whether we should provide for flexibility by defining a half sitting day as the period of business that is not question time.
I understand that, but that does not remove the premise that we should not change the rules unless we need to do so.
We have a lawyer present if you wish them to comment.
My understanding is that, if we are recommending option B—
We are recommending option C.
I thought that we were going for option B.
Under option C, question time would be on a Thursday afternoon from 2 pm to
None of the time slots recommended in option C matches the time slots in rule 5.6. That means that it would be impossible for the Parliamentary Bureau to allocate a half sitting day to a committee debate or a non-Executive debate in a way that would fit with standing orders. Is it viable for us to suggest a time that we know would make it impossible for the bureau to meet standing orders?
We can recommend amending the definition of a half sitting day.
That would imply that the current definition is wrong.
It would imply that there is a potential for the definition to be interpreted as wrong.
Come on. Stop dancing on the head of a pin.
Correct me if I am wrong, but I recall that we had to make other changes when we agreed to the trial period for First Minister's question time. How did those changes affect rule 5.6 of standing orders?
As I said, there is nothing about the scheduling of First Minister's question time at 12 noon in and of itself that contradicts the standing orders. The problem arises—if problem there is—when the Parliament, on the recommendation of the bureau, makes further decisions about the wider picture of the sitting pattern of the week.
Is there a standing order that allows the Parliament to amend sitting times, or the time for debates, for a temporary trial period? Does another standing order allow us to do that?
Andrew Mylne is right in effect that the issue is the 16 half sitting days that the Parliament chooses for debates by the political parties that are not represented on the Executive. Is the SNP's half sitting day next Thursday the half sitting day that is recommended in the standing orders?
That might be one conclusion that you could reach. However, if the parties are getting an allocation, does that matter?
It matters fundamentally if a Parliament is not abiding by its standing orders.
I am certainly not recommending that we should not abide by the standing orders.
The paragraphs in the report are trying to set out the potential for a problem that we need to regularise. If we are to recommend a particular sitting pattern, we need to ensure that the standing orders are not incompatible with it. If a member wishes to suggest another pattern for First Minister's question time, it would be sensible to propose some draft amendments to the standing orders. We need to ensure that there is no potential for conflict.
I am not sure that I am in a position to do that without further legal advice.
We would have to have that clarified as soon as possible.
There is no problem in getting that advice so that we have it when we decide on the recommendations for changes to the standing orders. We will do that at the next meeting, when we discuss the draft report.
Surely Bruce Crawford's point is another very good reason for not having First Minister's question time at noon.
With respect, it is only a matter of custom and habit that Opposition parties have had their half sitting days on a Thursday morning. They could just as easily have had them on a Wednesday afternoon. They cannot have them on a Thursday afternoon because of question time.
Surely one of the options is to move question time?
Time for reflection is also not counted. If we went for option B, for example, it would be possible to have a time period that was 2.30 pm to 5 pm. We have to bear it in mind, however, that we cannot send a recommendation on a standing order change that members are not—
I understand what you are saying but, if the committee is minded to recommend that the question time pattern is as we have already agreed, we need to look at the consequential effects that that will have on the rest of the standing orders. As part of the draft report, we will need to bring to the next meeting what those consequential changes would be. What we are trying to do in this report is to flag up the fact that there is a consequential change and that that needs to be looked at.
Yes, but is there not an issue of interpretation right now?
I suggest that that is a matter for the bureau to determine when it looks at the business motion for next week. It is the bureau that must interpret the situation under the present standing orders. Our job is to ensure that, when we make recommendations for change, we also point out the consequential changes that are required to implement that change. I suggest that we bring a draft set of standing orders to the meeting in two weeks' time in order to regularise the possible conflict that has arisen.
I ask for an explanation in simpler terms of the reasons for the possible changes to the standing orders and whether they are needed at all. I do not want the standing orders to be changed unless there is a problem.
We will try to ensure that that is done. We might be able to circulate some information prior to the meeting to clarify what the problems are. Indeed, given that Bruce Crawford has raised the issue, the bureau might have to do that at its meeting today.
There will be an opportunity for members to indicate their particular views on the draft report when we consider it at our next meeting.
Previous
Non-Executive BillsNext
Emergency Bills