Procedures Committee, 18 Jan 2000

Meeting date: Tuesday, January 18, 2000

Official Report 190KB pdf

---

Memorandum

I invite Donald to make some comments about his proposals. The desirable outcome is that the clerks will go away and come up with an issues paper in which they consider the practicalities of what is suggested. We could then discuss how we should take the proposals forward.

The paper reflects my strong views. I do not expect anyone to sign on and agree to it as a motion, as it were. It raises a number of issues. I wanted to find out what the mechanism should be for pursuing those issues, some of which may come within the remit of this committee. That was my first port of call. If the clerks or the convener tell me that committee A, the Parliamentary Bureau or whatever, are the people to raise point X with, I will happily do that. However, I am merely kicking the ball into play and I am happy for the officials to give the next kick.

Are members quite happy to seek issues and options on the points that Donald has raised? That would not sign everybody up to agreeing with his points on any particular issue. I suspect that the bumf-busting committee might generate more bumf than it ever busts. The report will tease those things out and will suggest ways in which we might, for example, minimise the amount of unnecessary photocopying, as a balance to the desire to provide a better service to the press and to members.

I agree with your proposal, but an issue that has come up from time to time is mentioned in paragraph 2 of Donald's document, which says:

"In return for more openness and a speedier and fuller flow of information . . . MSPs would agree to self-discipline in their tabling of questions".

I am not saying that I agree with Donald's comments, but I do not think that MSPs should agree to self-discipline in return for something. We should be self-disciplined anyway. You can see for yourself, in Written Answers, that answers often refer to previous questions. It shows how often members submit questions that have already been asked—sometimes by that same member. Members should exercise self-discipline anyway, and not in return for something. I am concerned by that comment.

I understand your point, but I counsel against presuming to blame a member for asking a lot of questions on one topic. I have asked about 30 questions about the M74. If the minister had answered my first question, none of the rest would have been necessary. Members do not always get direct responses to questions and must therefore approach the issue from another angle to try to flush out the Executive's view.

There are some members at the top of the theoretical league table that appears from time to time in the press. Some of them might be more concerned with their league position than with getting answers, but I cannot judge that. Members have asked an average of 35 written questions each—a total of about 3,500. Whether that is an excessive number will be established by the study that we discussed earlier.

Donald Gorrie has made a number of helpful suggestions about information hotlines. If we can comb out questions that ask for facts and figures from the system by finding a better way to resource dissemination of information, we will remove much of the burden of work. Much of the time, members do not know where to get information. The Executive's resources are considerably greater than the Parliament's, so perhaps some sharing of information might solve the problem. That will be sorted out in the discussion of different options.

I would like to support the view that we should try to offer options that will result in the provision of better quality answers. We should not query the quality of written questions; we should query the quality of the answers that members are given. Some of the answers are diabolical. In fact, they are not answers. I welcome the letter and I hope that something worthwhile comes of it.

Are members all agreed on how we should proceed?

I would like to make a couple of brief points. Some of the issues that have been raised should be referred to the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body because the issues about SPICe resources and so on and are not within the committee's remit.

Guidance on contacting Scottish Executive staff—who are still members of the UK civil service and are covered by the employment conditions and code of conduct of the UK civil service—has been published on the Executive's devolution website. There is also a public information line, the telephone number of which is 0131 244 8400. There is also a local call rate number, which is 0345 741741. That is open to MSPs and researchers, who will be put in contact with the appropriate official who will give them the information they want. Using those numbers might reduce the need for written questions, if members can get the information that they need. If members have problems getting the information that way, they should write to the appropriate minister.

See the things you learn, as they would say in the Evening Times. I thank Iain Smith for that helpful information. Somebody should, perhaps, ensure that those telephone numbers are put on the Parliament's website as a reminder to members who might not have noticed the announcement the first time around. Is that something to which the Executive would give consent?

They are for public information.

I will try to identify a suitable transmission system for relaying that information. I will follow that up—I might even do it myself.