Official Report 88KB pdf
We agreed at our last meeting that we would take items 3 and 4, which are on draft reports, in private. Therefore, the only item to discuss in public today is item 2, which concerns a note from the clerk on a request from the Parliamentary Bureau to look again at question time. I am looking for comments from committee members before I make my own comments on the matter.
I am not convinced by the case, to be honest. In First Minister's question time, the Presiding Officer has the discretion to call a member after either of the first two questions on any subject. If a member has a pressing supplementary question that was not going to be asked in questions 3, 4, 5 or 6, the Presiding Officer has the discretion to call that member after either the leader of the Opposition or the leader of the Conservative party, as things stand at the moment. It is unnecessary to change the rules to accommodate what can already happen
I agree with Karen Gillon. I am not aware of the information that the Presiding Officer has that prompted him to make this request. We have had an extensive review of how First Minister's question time and question time generally operate. Had the matter that has been raised been an issue at the time, I am sure that the committee would have considered it. From time to time there may be emergencies and members may be unable to attend. However, as Karen Gillon said, the Presiding Officer has adequate discretion to deal with such situations. A change is unnecessary.
I wonder what the background to the request is. Why, all of a sudden, has the matter become an issue? I was not aware of any specific instances that would make it necessary to change rule 13.7.4. If the request was triggered by specific instances, we should know what those instances were and when they happened.
As far as I am aware, the only information that we have received is the letter from the Presiding Officer asking us to look at the matter. We have not received any other information about why the request has been made.
If we write to the Presiding Officer to say that we feel that there is no need to attend to the issue, perhaps we could refer to our understanding that he has the discretion to call members to ask supplementary questions instead of the member who lodged the main question.
Any view expressed by the Presiding Officer should have particular relevance to the committee and to the whole Parliament. However, having looked briefly at the note that the committee received, I do not see a great deal of evidence to support the desire to change the rule. Nonetheless, out of respect for the Presiding Officer, we should include any additional support and remarks that we have on the matter in our communication with him.
Cathie Craigie and Karen Gillon have expressed my view on the matter fairly clearly—although I expressed it in somewhat fruitier language when the clerk raised the matter with me initially. Frankly, the committee has spent considerable time on oral questions over the past two years. The present arrangements for First Minister's question time have been in place for the best part of two years. There was adequate opportunity for suggested changes when we carried out our final review in the early part of 2005. I would be unwilling to reopen the matter unless there was very strong evidence for the need for change. The bureau or the Presiding Officer may in future write to the committee with such evidence, but at this stage I recommend to the committee that we do not add changing rule 13.7.4 to our work programme. Do members agree?
Members indicated agreement.
Meeting continued in private until 12:34.
Previous
Interests