Voting Arrangements
We will now hear evidence from the Scottish Daily Newspaper Society, at its request, in support of the point that it wishes to make about decision time.
Welcome to this meeting of the Procedures Committee, gentlemen. I am the convener. The other committee members are arrayed around the table and have name-plates. The other people at the table are a variety of excellent officials.
Mr Raeburn is the director of the Scottish Daily Newspaper Society. Mr Reid is the editor of The Herald and is chairman of the society's editors committee. Mr McLellan is the editor of the Edinburgh Evening News. Gentlemen, who will speak for the society?
Mr Harry Reid (Scottish Daily Newspaper Society):
I will.
Convener and members of the committee, we appreciate the chance to come here today and to express our concerns to you. The SDNS represents the publishers of Scotland's daily and Sunday newspapers. It has an editors committee and I am here today as the chairman of that committee, not as editor of The Herald. With me, as you said, convener, are John McLellan, the editor of the Edinburgh Evening News and Jim Raeburn, the director of the society.
We have some serious concerns, which I will briefly outline to the committee. The concerns that we want to express are felt particularly strongly by the editors of the four evening papers in Glasgow, Edinburgh, Dundee and Aberdeen, but I emphasise that all members of the editors committee endorse those concerns, which I will explain as concisely as I can.
We believe that both the public attending debates and the media reporting the debates should know members' decision at a debate's conclusion. Otherwise, if I might repeat Jim Raeburn's memorable phrase, it is a little like reporting a football match without a result.
It appears that there is now recognition of the case for a 12.30 pm vote when major issues have been debated. We suggest that the votes of all debates that are concluded prior to lunch should be taken at 12.30 as standard, rather than at the discretion of the Presiding Officer. Presumably, it would be possible to determine in advance those debates that are scheduled to finish in the morning and, therefore, for MSPs to receive advance notice of when they need to be in the chamber to cast their votes.
Obviously, that applies also to ministers, and I understand that there is an apparent worry about ministers' diaries. However, if I may say so, surely the voting arrangements are a matter for the Parliament and for this committee, not for the Executive. It would not seem to require particularly onerous diary management if ministers have to bother about attending votes on only 25 or 30 days out of 365 days in the calendar year, particularly if the arrangements can be signalled well in advance.
I also understand that members follow the guidelines set down by the consultative steering group. While I do not wish to deprecate the excellent work of that group, it was supposed to provide start-up guidelines. We are now in a position where the Parliament and this committee can show flexibility in what I might call an evolutionary spirit.
My colleague Charles McGhee, who is the editor of the Glasgow Evening Times, is not here today, but he asked me to read out a brief note that he prepared to express his concerns. I will do that and then I will hand over to John McLellan, or back to you, convener.
Charles's note says:
"Since I took over as Editor of the Evening Times in August of last year, I have been conscious that the paper's coverage of Parliamentary business was less than satisfactory. The timing of debates, committee meetings, votes, and even briefings, means that the Evening Times is largely excluded from reporting the day-to-day happenings of the Parliament. Our coverage is either largely speculative or retrospective. I accept that our deadlines (8.30 am for first edition and 1.45 pm for last edition) do not help, but I suspect that I am not the only evening newspaper editor caught in this situation. I find it regrettable in our fledgling devolved democracy that I am unable to provide Evening Times' readers with an acceptable level of coverage of the Parliament and I would appreciate if you could convey my concerns as part of your representations."
Thank you. Members will be able to ask questions and make points, but first I think we should hear from all the witnesses.
Mr John McLellan (Edinburgh Evening News):
I echo some of what Charles McGhee says in his letter, although our deadlines fit the workings of the Parliament better than those of the Evening Times. The vote on the Holyrood project created a serious problem that I would not want to see repeated. It was particularly crucial to the city of Edinburgh. The debate took place in the morning and was completed by lunch time, yet the decision—which we knew was likely to be tight—was not taken until 5 pm. There were two or three hours of dead time when we carried a report that we knew would be overtaken by events later that afternoon.
I concede that there are fairly few occasions when that occurs, which leads me to believe that a change to a vote at 12.30 would not be too onerous for the Parliament. I echo what Harry Reid said about ministers' diaries. If there are not many occasions when a 12.30 vote will be needed, then I cannot see that it will be too onerous for ministers to organise themselves around it.
The Act of Settlement debate was another occasion on which a debate was concluded by lunch time but the vote was not taken until later. Had it not been for an amendment, that could have been a vote with considerable implications for us and our readers. The problem applies as much to broadcasters as to evening newspapers; afternoon and drive-time radio and lunch time TV bulletins are potentially denied the result of a debate if the decision is not taken until 5 pm.
Mr J B Raeburn (Scottish Daily Newspaper Society):
The arguments for the lunch time vote were well debated in the Procedures Committee report. However, there are further points that arise when you analyse the Official Report, which I looked at on the internet. With the exception of last Thursday, when there was an all-day housing debate, almost every Thursday morning a debate has been completed at 12.30. On the occasions that I looked into, with the exception of the Act of Settlement debate and the millennium date change, that debate went to a vote at 5 pm, so the debate was divorced from the vote by four and a half hours. There were two earlier votes, possibly for technical reasons: on Mr Mike Russell's motion without notice in mid-December there was a vote at 9.45 am; and on the mental health bill there was a vote at 11 am.
It is clear that the Presiding Officer is not exercising the discretion available in standing orders. Voting is consistently at 5 pm. Like a lot of things in life, it is a case of striking a balance and that balance should be struck between what suits the Parliament and the public's right to know. At present the balance is heavily biased to what suits the Parliament. The public has that right to know. The Parliament's views and decisions should be delivered through the printed and broadcast media as quickly as possible.
To recapitulate, the position is that the committee discussed this issue when possible changes to the draft standing orders were considered before they were formally approved by Parliament in December. The conclusion we came to was that no change in the standing orders was needed and that the matter could be addressed by the Presiding Officer exercising discretion. We felt that the existing standing orders gave him that discretion. In giving the Presiding Officer that advice, we were influenced by the Holyrood debate, which many of us felt would have benefited from an immediate vote, given that the debate was fully attended.
Although the committee discussed this question previously, there is no reason to imagine that we should not discuss it again; we are always open to the suggestion that we have got something wrong. This is an evolutionary process and we are entitled to reconsider any decision made previously in the light of further evidence or representations. This is a fully open discussion and our decision will not be prejudiced in any way by the fact that we have already discussed this question.
I now throw the meeting open to committee members to ask questions or make points that they feel are relevant. I also extend that courtesy to Iain Smith, who is not formally a committee member but who participates in committee business as our link to the Executive.
I have two points. First, the Parliament is not designed around the Executive, as one of the witnesses suggested. This debate is about accessibility to the Parliament, which applies equally to back benchers, who may arrange other events at pressing times. A great benefit of the Scottish Parliament is that members, and ministers, are allowed to get out to communities and to be accessible to them. This committee has previously discussed the fact that changing decision time would severely curtail the activities of ministers, on whom demands are pretty severe, and those of back benchers who may wish to attend events that are not in or around Edinburgh, particularly on Thursdays.
Secondly, on the public's right to know, we are a very open Parliament. I sympathise with the SDNS—journalists have represented your case well to MSPs—but I do not think that the timing of decision time inhibits the public's right to know, although, in a sense, it may postpone the reporting of information. However, one of the great strengths of the Parliament is that it is open, accessible and out there, in terms of members going to communities arguing, discussing and contacting the people that they are supposed to represent. That strength would be inhibited if we made changes. A balance must be struck—in life, we must make decisions. The way in which things work at the moment is unfortunate, but they are that way for valid reasons.
I might have other points to make during the course of the discussion.
I will allow our visitors to respond to those points, if they wish.
We have already heard the football result analogy and, if members will forgive me, I will lapse into racing jargon. If one is in a betting shop, watching a race with an extremely close finish, one is dependent upon a photograph for the outcome. The punters would be outraged if the result were not declared for four and a half hours. In the parallel situation, the public should not have to wait four and a half hours for the result of a vote in the Parliament.
If we were talking about the result of an occasion such as the Grand National, the Presiding Officer would be able to bring the result forward. But would that be necessary for an event like the 3.30 at Haydock, considering the imbalance that would occur? Decisions in Parliament are not a horse race or a football match. You are stretching the sporting analogy too far.
Certain debates are particularly newsworthy and the results should be available quickly. There are other situations, such as the submission of draft standing orders, that will not stimulate or excite readers and that might not be covered. However, debates such as the Holyrood debate or the debate on the Act of Settlement are newsworthy, yet the Presiding Officer is not exercising his discretion on such occasions, despite there being a strong case that he should do so. Perhaps the Parliamentary Bureau could give advance notice, flagging up to everyone that the vote will be taken at 12.30 pm on such occasions.
I do not think that I shall pursue the racing analogy, which would be better suited to my party leader than to myself.
This is an interesting discussion. The first time that we discussed this matter, the committee unanimously accepted that the balance of advantage to the Parliament lay in holding decision time at 5 o'clock. Murray Tosh was right to talk about reconsidering this matter because, as time has gone on, we have begun to see a little difference between the pure recommendations of the CSG, which were intended to make the Parliament tidy, civilised and organised, and the theatre of politics. As the media relate primarily to the latter—regrettably, perhaps—it is wise for us to revisit the issue.
I have sympathy with ministers, who will have difficulties with a change to decision time, but I am impressed by the argument that the change will affect only one day a week. I cannot remember the figure used by Mr Reid, but that change would apply only to a limited number of days.
Interesting examples of particular debates have been given—such as Opposition day debates, which are often on a Thursday morning—in which there is some dubiety about the outcome. There is rarely dubiety about the outcome of Executive business, as the Executive can usually deliver the votes.
Should we consider reversing the default position, that is, building into the standing orders a decision time of 12.30 pm on Thursdays, which could be dispensed with if there was no need for it? We would simply shift the balance of advantage very slightly by saying, "Let's normally have a decision time at 12.30 pm". I am quite certain that, nine times out of 10, the bureau, which would consider this proposal, would be able to say, "There is no need for a decision time at 12.30, as it would not change things, and there is no requirement to bring ministers back. Let's dispense with it."
Perhaps the default position could be established in standing orders for Opposition half days and other unusual occasions. It is difficult to persuade the Presiding Officer of the need to have a vote at 12.30 pm, as that is a change to normal practice. It would be easier for the bureau to accept a postponement of a 12.30 pm decision time if there were no need for it. That might be a way forward.
I want to make a small point about one of the earlier comments. I understand that, despite previous statements, an unofficial pairing system is beginning to emerge; therefore, it is not beyond anyone's wit to be able to ensure that if they need to be absent from a 12.30 pm decision time, it will not have a material affect on the outcome of a vote. Opting in, rather than opting out, might be a reasonable way forward.
I noted three items that I wanted to ask about. Has a pairing system been agreed? Michael Russell is a business manager and Iain Smith is the Deputy Minister for Parliament, so perhaps they could tell us if an effective pairing system is in existence or under negotiation.
The SNP and Labour have an informal pairing agreement. However, it would be put under strain if 20 ministers were absent each time there was a vote at lunch time. That might be an abuse of the pairing system.
Mike is right. While the pairing system is appropriate for things such as Executive business, it would not be appropriate for dealing with items such as the Holyrood building, which is the issue that has caused most concern to the newspapers. The existence of the pairing system is not an argument for changing the voting time.
I agree that we should draw the attention of the Presiding Officer to the fact that he has the power to decide when the votes should be held. He has not yet used that power. We might want to write to him again telling him, urging him or inviting him—whatever we are allowed to do—to bear in mind that, when there is a free-standing debate on a Thursday morning on a controversial or important issue, he should have the vote at 12.30 pm and give everyone notice of that. That is a slightly different solution from the one that Mike Russell suggested.
I am not quite sure of our powers in regard to the Presiding Officer. I do not know how far we can go.
We can advise him only.
We are free to advise him, but he can decide what weight to give to our advice. He might receive conflicting advice.
We could tell him that if he did not follow our advice to our satisfaction, we would change the standing orders. We are the ultimate boss, not the Presiding Officer.
He will read the proceedings of this committee. Having heard that comment, I am not sure that he should.
He takes the advice of the business managers through the business bureau. If the business managers felt that there was a case for having decision time at 12.30 pm, they would put that case to the Presiding Officer and it is unlikely that he would disagree with them.
On the issue of ministers' time being valuable, it seems strange to have everybody in the chamber for a debate and then bring everybody back again at 5 o'clock.
I accept what Mr Kerr said: there is a diary management issue for back benchers as well as ministers. As Mr Russell knows, I am not a mathematical genius, but I am aware that there are only 52 Thursdays in any year. We are talking about only a few of those days, which is not that great a number.
That is a key point. If Parliament is on holiday for 17 weeks a year—the Daily Record's estimate, which I am sure that nobody believes—the number of working Thursdays would be reduced by 17. This Thursday sees an all-day debate on drug misuse. There are 16 Opposition half days, I think, which are likely to be Thursday mornings. It has to be said that the number of days on which decision time could be affected by the proposal that we are discussing would be considerably less than 25.
It is important to emphasise Andy Kerr's point: all members' diaries would be affected, not just ministers' diaries. A requirement to be in the chamber at 12.30 pm on Thursdays would limit their ability to have meetings and effectively represent their constituents.
We must also bear in mind that the committee has decided, and the standing orders now reflect, that Parliament can meet on Wednesday mornings. That means that a decision on this matter could affect decision times on a Wednesday as well. That would increase significantly the diary difficulties of ministers and other members. The demands on ministers go beyond a responsibility to vote at a certain time. They must also attend committees, cabinet meetings and other meetings. Their capability to hold meetings is already restricted.
The standing orders are sufficiently flexible to allow the bureau to recommend that the vote on certain debates be conducted at 12.30 pm. Perhaps that should have happened with the debate on Holyrood. On occasion, the speed with which a decision is made is less important than the need to get the decision right. I am not suggesting that the couple of hours would allow whips to twist members' arms—sometimes it might be appropriate for members to think about a debate for a while before they vote rather than voting right after the heat of a debate.
Spoken like a true whip.
Does it look like the volume of business will necessitate Wednesday morning meetings?
It is unlikely to do so soon. As more legislation comes back from the committees, which is likely to happen after the Easter recess, the pressure on parliamentary time will increase.
The first option is the Wednesday evening, not Wednesday morning, as that impinges on committees' time.
That would not affect voting time.
If Wednesdays are used, are we likely to have all-day debates on Wednesdays? Are we likely to have the committee reports at that time?
It is more likely that all-day debates would take place on a Thursday as we have that odd 90-minute slot on a Thursday afternoon. It would be appropriate for longer debates to use up that awkward slot.
We should bear in mind that all members will have to be present during stage 3 debates in the chamber. That will have an effect on their diaries.
My point is that our decision will affect Wednesdays as well as Thursdays. That compounds the difficulties that the press and the broadcasting media will have. It also illustrates the fact that what seems to be a minor concession at the moment might turn out to be a significant change from the point of view of managing business.
Iain Smith made an interesting point. When the chamber acts as a committee and during a stage 3 debate, we vote on amendments as they arise, not at 5 pm. The chamber, as a legislative body, already changes the time that it votes.
In our original discussion, we envisaged that, from time to time, decisions would be taken at lunch time. Perhaps people thought that we meant that we did not want to have the decisions at lunch time. Mike's suggestion would tweak the system. We would still be able to continue into the evening if members wanted that. The message would go out that we want to have certain decisions taken at 12.30 pm.
The press are making two arguments. There is the issue of the 5 pm decision time precluding a report of the vote being carried in the evening papers. There is also the issue that Mr Raeburn seems to be picking up on—the public's perception of decisions not being taken at the end of the relevant debate.
Before I was elected, I was sceptical about the consultative steering group's recommendations. Having been involved in committees for years, I though it logical that a vote on an issue should be taken at the end of the debate on it. However, there are practicalities involved, such as those that Andy Kerr mentioned. I know that witnesses might be sceptical about the contention that it is difficult for members to schedule their diaries around one day a week. Members do not, however, have the luxury that ministers have of being able to pick the dates when things happen. Constituency work must be done at particular times and if that time is the middle of the day on a Thursday, that is the way it must be. It makes sense that members are not tied to attending a 12.30 pm decision time.
I agree that the public have a right to know about decisions, but I do not understand why you think that we are denying them that right by having decision time at 5 pm. Having decision time then may mean that the evening papers cannot report the results of a vote until the following day, when, perhaps, the gloss is off the result, but the public still have the right to know the decisions and there are plenty of opportunities for them to find out results, through, for example the evening television news and the following day's papers. The public's right to know is not, therefore, an issue.
Iain Smith is correct to say that the Presiding Officer has the right to decide when votes take place. In isolated cases—such as the with the Holyrood project—if it would be better to have the vote at lunch time, that should happen, as indeed it can under the current standing orders. I have heard nothing today from the witnesses that changes my mind about the 5 pm decision time, which I support for many reasons.
We are, perhaps, underestimating the work of the ministers. It is difficult for them to do all that we expect of them and be around for a 12.30 pm decision time, but there should be a provision that allows for earlier decision times in isolated incidents.
The evening papers are a means of communicating with thousands of people in Scotland. As Charlie McGhee pointed out in his letter, we are not in the business of hanging on the coat tails of the morning papers. Having votes at 5 pm on major issues such as Holyrood does not mean that we will carry a story based on the morning papers' stories or on what was on television the night before—we will simply not carry the story. We will forget about it—we will move on and do something else or find a story with a stance that opposes the decision.
It is important not to dismiss our readers in considering how the Parliament communicates with the people. Thousands of readers in the country's four main cities rely on the evening papers for up-to-date information. To cut the evening papers out of reporting decisions is a serious action.
This all comes back to the point that was made about the number of occasions on which the timing of decision time will have an effect on the evening papers. Although there have not been that many occasions, one is too many. In recent months, when there has been an important debate and the power was available to have the vote at 12.30 pm, that did not happen. This is like the old question of opting in or out of paying union dues—if one has to opt out, one ends up paying.
I think that you are right. Perhaps the decision on the Holyrood debate was a mistake by the Presiding Officer, but he will now consider things differently and may decide to hold decision time more frequently. However, even if we hold decision time twice daily, you will still not be able to report the result of the afternoon debates, as those decisions will not be taken until 5 o'clock—you would not always be able to report fresh news.
I do not dispute that.
The circulation of Scottish evening newspapers is nearly 300,000. If one converts that into the number of readers, one is talking about nearly three quarters of a million people, which is a large part of the Scottish population.
We have concentrated on the Holyrood debate. Are you saying that the debates that took place on pensioners, law and order, the economy, and education were not topical or newsworthy items for reporting through evening newspapers?
I am not saying that at all. The Presiding Officer may decide that the status of an issue is such that a decision on it can be taken at lunch time, but always to schedule voting at lunch time would make a big difference to the lives and performance of back benchers and ministers—it would make things difficult for us all.
We appreciate that a balance has to be struck. However, as well as having morning commitments in their constituencies, MSPs will probably have evening engagements. At times, a lunch time vote may suit people, as it would enable them to leave before 5 pm. The fundamental point is that the Presiding Officer is not exercising his discretion under the standing orders—there has not once been a vote at 12.30 pm.
I have allowed the deputy convener to pull rank considerably, but Andy Kerr is desperate to get back into the discussion, so I will allow him to do so.
We do not dismiss your readership. On balance, based on previous discussions, we think that the status quo should remain. This is not about ignoring your views, but about deciding how best to do business in the Parliament. It is unfortunate that that causes difficulties for evening newspapers.
Perhaps I should declare an interest; I was an Evening Times delivery boy for many years, so I know the importance of evening newspapers in local communities. We are not taking a view on the quality or nature of evening newspapers.
A way forward would be to ensure that it was more likely than not that decisions were taken at lunch time, but that the Executive still had the option of not pushing its business to a vote at lunch time.
Interestingly, most of the debates that you have mentioned were on Opposition half days—the more I consider this, the more I think that that is where the issue lies. I would welcome the Executive bringing forward business on Thursday morning for decision at lunch time, but it may choose not to do so. Why should the Opposition parties not have the right to decide that there should be a vote at lunch time?
To move this issue forward, perhaps the committee should take it back on to its list of priority issues for changes in standing orders. We could examine it in light of the evidence and move to a formal motion on it next week.
Mr Raeburn has given us some interesting statistics, which I do not mistrust, but it would be useful for us to study the debates that he mentioned and to form a view on how newsworthy the votes on them were.
Perhaps our lords and masters could tell us what more is in prospect for us. That might guide our view on how big an issue this is.
That would be like sending the witnesses away without giving them the result of the meeting.
That will be inevitable unless we move to a formal motion now, which I am happy for us to do, although I do not think that it would be helpful.
The diary argument is overhyped. It does not bust anyone to take a quarter of an hour—probably less for most of us—out of their day to vote. We are here only for a day and a half, which leaves a lot of the week for doing things elsewhere. It would do no harm if a few more people attended a few more debates.
Donald Gorrie is very lucky if he is here only for a day and a half. I would like it put on the record that committee meetings run from Tuesday morning and plenary meetings end on Thursday night. There is a level on which Donald is right. Avoiding voting is like running railways for the benefit of the station-master. We are here to vote, as well as for many other purposes.
Mike Russell says that we should put the issue back into our work programme. Is the substantive point that, over Christmas, he has worked out on how many Thursdays Parliament meets? I knew that when we discussed this previously. What are the new issues? Many journalists presented their views effectively about the difficulties that they face, so our decision was not based on a lack of knowledge.
One of the witnesses said that a balance had to be struck; it is up to me to do that as I draw our discussion to a conclusion. We have had a clear indication from a couple of members that they are content with the status quo. Another two members have said that they would like to change the status quo procedurally so that the weight of expectation was that we would vote at 12.30 pm, unless the bureau decided otherwise. Donald Gorrie has suggested that we could avoid a change if the Presiding Officer exercised his discretion, which he did not do on the one substantive occasion on which this has been an issue, and that we should reconsider the question in the light of diaries and so on.
I am inclined to agree with those who say that the Holyrood debate has been the exception. The other examples that Mr Raeburn cited were all-morning debates on Opposition motions, in which there was never any doubt about the outcome of the vote. Even if the Opposition parties voted together, they would lose the debate, so there has never been any suspense. There was some interest in whether there would be a division after the debate on the Act of Succession. As that was one of our most acrimonious debates, it was remarkable that we ended up agreeing on it.
The Holyrood debate, which was in many ways unique, took place at the start of our experience. There was no whipping or arm-twisting—allegedly—so the debate was a one-off. With the benefit of hindsight—the easiest of all sciences—the committee's judgment was that the Presiding Officer got it wrong.
It is appropriate to rest with our decision. We should repeat and re-emphasise our advice to the Presiding Officer that he has the discretion to hold decision time at lunch time, which he should use in debates that are likely to catch the public imagination. That might include debates such as the one on the Act of Succession, but it is unlikely to cover a routine political attack on the Executive's policies by an Opposition party.
If we could ensure that exceptional debates, which really captured the imagination of the press and the public, were dealt with immediately, the evening newspapers and radio companies, which want the result right away, would get it. We would all be relatively happy with that outcome.
I do not know what the burden of work on ministers is and what the diary complications would be. Voting is not simply a matter of 15 minutes; if the minister's office is in Glasgow or he or she is in a meeting in Dumfries that morning, it is quite a commitment to be back in Edinburgh for 12.30 pm rather than 2.30 pm—that would substantially shorten the day.
If the committee wants, I have no objection to our having a discussion with the Executive to find out what the practical implications for ministers would be; indeed, it might be constructive to see whether there is a real problem that we can address.
I am quite happy to discuss the matter again, once we have the outcome of such a study. However, we have already identified a means of overcoming the problem. The solution has not yet been tested, simply because, since we made our recommendations in December, the occasion has not arisen. Last Thursday and this Thursday we have had all-day debates for which the votes take place at 5 pm regardless.
If an occasion arises where it can be demonstrated subsequently that there should have been a vote at 12.30 pm, but there was not, I will hold up my hand and say that we—or someone in the system—got it wrong and that we will get it right the next time.
Essentially, we are discussing a difficulty that arose on one occasion before the summer recess. We have identified the solution, so I am minded to opt for the status quo, with the qualification that we will consider the practicalities for ministers and reflect on the matter once we have completed our research.
I am always loth to disagree with you, convener, but I think that we should add the matter to our work programme with a view, at least, to supplementing our advice to the Presiding Officer, so that Opposition parties' requests for a 12.30 pm vote on Opposition half days can be considered. That is the key issue. I am happy to formalise that view and put it to a vote if you so wish.
I have said that we should discuss the matter again in the light of the research that we commission into work load. If you are happy to raise the matter again then, and if the committee is not minded to agree with your point of view, we can put the matter to a vote.
So the matter will be given further consideration at a future meeting.
That is what is implied by agreeing that we will research the matter and report back. At this stage—and perhaps subsequently—I am not prepared to change the guidance, but I am happy to consider the work load.
I am happy to consider the matter at a future meeting, as long as the research includes Donald Gorrie's point about an analysis of the Thursdays to date and the voting.
That is perfectly appropriate.
Gentlemen, we have probably breached procedure. We are supposed to ask you questions to which you are supposed to give us answers, but instead we have had a debate in which we have tried to involve you. I hope that that at least leaves you thinking that the Scottish Parliament is more open than Westminster. The matter will come back for discussion in the light of the discussion that you have just heard. If any of you wants to make a final point, I am happy for you to do so, although I am anxious to move on to the next item on the agenda.
It would be helpful if the SDNS could be given the opportunity to make further comments on any research that is done before it goes back to the committee. That would achieve the proper balance and ensure that the committee could give the whole matter its full consideration.
I think that that would be appropriate. Similarly, we may need to come back to you for clarification of the information that you have given us in evidence about readership and deadlines. We may ask for some comparative analysis on whether it is more or less difficult to report this Parliament compared with Westminster. There is more information to be teased out, but we have identified how we can do that.
Thank you for your attendance. I am afraid that you have not achieved a result, but extra time may yet be played.
We appreciate the fact that you have considered our points, convener.