Procedures Committee, 19 Dec 2000

Meeting date: Tuesday, December 19, 2000

Official Report 203KB pdf

---

Correspondence (Parliamentary Bureau)

I invite Ken Hughes to join us.

We now have the Parliamentary Bureau's response to Donald Gorrie's paper on Parliament gaining more control over its business. It has taken a long time for the reply to come and I regret that there is no response to the final section of the paper, which is on the bureau's minutes, even though that issue has been around the longest and is relatively straightforward to address. Perhaps Ken Hughes will tell us whether that is unfair.

Yes it is.

Although we have Sir David's letter, I suggest we begin by inviting Ken to give a summary of the main points. Then I will invite the committee to discuss each point in sequence.

I repeat the apology made in the letter for the tardy response. The paper contains a number of wide-ranging issues and to summarise it too neatly would not do it justice, so I will just add a few wee points.

On the creation of a question time for the Minister for Parliament to answer questions on bureau business, it is not mentioned in the paper that party members may of course question their business managers.

Not when the business is confidential.

On the point on fewer but longer debates, we recently sent statistics to the Procedures Committee on the management of debates. We are calling most members in most debates; the average number of members not called in a debate is now 0.7, so there is some progress.

On debates on a subject rather than a motion, it is already possible to hold such a debate, although the situation has not yet arisen. All the business managers were reasonably relaxed about trying that proposal, with the proviso that, if any business manager argues that the debate should be on a motion to force a resolution by the Parliament, their veto would stand and the debate would have to be on a motion.

I do not need to address the points about bills. On members who request to speak in a debate but are not called, the response suggests that

"overall statistics should continue to be published from time to time".

So far we have published a summary of the statistics on that once, in the business bulletin. We envisage doing so from time to time to update members.

On the suggestion that the number of three-hour Executive morning debates should be reduced, the bureau was in agreement that longer debates are needed from time to time. When we were in Glasgow, we spent all day debating Glasgow regeneration and, as I remember, we struggled to allow every member who wanted to speak to do so—and that debate lasted for seven hours. However, the bureau will pay attention to the scheduling of such beasts and will make decisions on a case-by-case basis.

Thank you. The letter usefully highlights each issue and gives the bureau response. We should now decide what, if anything, we wish to do to progress any matter; we must decide where we accept the response and where we wish to continue to consider the matter. Does anyone have a comment on the first point, which is on a question time for the Minister for Parliament? The response is fairly categorical—members should challenge the business motion if they wish to make a point to the Minister for Parliament.

Challenging the business motion would be overkill. There is a difference between speaking to one's party business manager and asking him a question and getting an answer—there are three separate elements to that—and having someone in the Parliament whom members have the right to question about the Parliamentary Bureau. The bureau is the fulcrum of the Parliament and it is like a secret society. To open it up for questioning would be beneficial for everyone.

For instance, there was a debate last week where almost every speaker was saying, "This is not what we have been told—we have been told this, that and the next thing." Before we got to that stage, it would have been nice to have been able to ask a couple of pertinent questions so that all the parties knew exactly where they stood, whereas everybody was completely in the dark as to what the other parties had agreed—or not agreed—or how they had got themselves into that position. I think that it would be extremely useful for Parliament to be able to question the Minister for Parliament now and then.

Would you want the question time to happen sporadically or would it be timetabled, perhaps for a 15-minute session every couple of months? If you are going to push the idea of questions to the business manager, you must suggest how it would be done.

We could have a space on the timetable for questions on the business motion, even though that space may not be needed. I have already used the word "overkill", and it would be overkill to define a time that had to be used for that purpose. However, it would be of no use whatever if we had only a quarterly or monthly opportunity to ask questions. We must be able to ask questions when the need arises. I suggest that minutes of Parliamentary Bureau meetings should be taken. If minutes were available, there would probably be no need to ask questions.

Like Gil Paterson, I think that it would be helpful to be able to ask questions. In his response to my paper, Sir David Steel says that we cannot

"expect Executive Business managers to answer questions on behalf of Non-Executive parties or Committees."

We are not asking for that, but it is reasonable for the Government business manager—who is the person who designs the timetable of the Parliament—to answer questions about that timetable. That is a perfectly sensible request.

Gil Paterson says that there would be no point in asking questions after the event: most issues have to be dealt with on the instant. Perhaps it would be reasonable to have a formal facility for asking questions before the business motion is moved each week. In effect, we are being challenged to challenge the business motion. I accept that challenge.

I thought that you might.

I think that I am the only person to have challenged a business motion, which I have done twice. I accumulated only a small number of votes, but the challenge to the motion meant that the Executive got into a flap and brought in all sorts of people. If the Parliamentary Bureau wants a challenge, it can have it. However, its response to a reasonable request that we should be able to ask questions has been foolish. I know that we are not meant to copy Westminster slavishly, but one of the better things about Westminster is the hour in which Tom McCabe's counterpart answers questions.

I have a difficulty with the suggestion that we challenge the business motion. John Patterson, the clerk, is just checking this, but as I understand it, the Presiding Officer is required under standing orders to allow the business motion to be opposed—not questioned, but opposed. One speaker may speak for the motion, and one against. That does not facilitate questions. However, by loosening up the process, we may be able to find a workable way of proceeding. The Presiding Officer could allow a question to be put, which the minister would answer.

Issues tend to come up in the final two or three minutes of the morning meeting. If the morning meeting has to run 10 minutes into lunch time, perhaps we have to say, "So be it." If answers are required to genuine questions, we have to ask whether we should dismiss them simply because we have a theoretical obligation to stop at 12.30. We often go past 12.30 anyway. That may be a little disingenuous, because the standing orders do not allow time to be used in that way, but it could be the answer if the bureau is prepared to allow it.

Perhaps we should clarify what the standing orders say and then communicate with the Presiding Officer and the Parliamentary Bureau. Let us see if we can agree on an acceptable way of conducting this business. If we have to tweak the standing orders, we can look into that.

I can confirm that, under standing orders, one person may speak for the business motion and one against. A maximum of five minutes is allowed for each speech, and that is it.

In that period, half a dozen questions could be asked, if the arrangements were a bit more flexible. No business or time would be lost.

The problem with the existing approach is that people may not want to oppose the business motion but may have legitimate questions on a particular topic.

A member may not think of opposing the motion until he or she has heard the answers to the questions.

Quite.

Members just make points of order instead.

Yes, they do. Such points of order are sometimes dealt with, but more often the Presiding Officer has to say, "I am sorry, but that is not a point of order."

Which is accurate.

Yes, but it is unsatisfactory, because it means that issues that people want to ventilate cannot be ventilated.

We now come the vexed question of having fewer debates but allocating more time, to allow more, and slightly longer, speeches. Ken Hughes's response was that the evidence suggests that we are disappointing relatively few people. I wonder whether that is because few people try to participate, because the system in which parties nominate speakers in advance has taken over completely.

It is wrong to assume that people are getting the chance to speak—there is a queue before members get on to the queue. It is a bit like the health service.

Gratuitous, but on you go.

Before they can speak in a debate, members have to sook up to whomever the spokesperson is.

Surprise, surprise, but I agree totally with Donald Gorrie. Two weeks ago, I had written a four-minute speech, but the Presiding Officer squeezed the time.

You spoke for four minutes anyway.

No, I did not; I ended up throwing the speech away—not that it was all that good. The point is that, at the start of the debate, there had been plenty of time for all speakers. My party lists its speakers; others who want to speak may or may not get the chance. The members who open the debate, and the party spokespeople, get all the time in the world. It is the other people who want to contribute who always suffer—and they tend to be the same people.

It would help if the Presiding Officer, whoever he or she may be, were more rigid with the opening speakers—and the closing speakers, for that matter—rather than being rigid with the other speakers during the body of the debate. There seems to be plenty of time to make statements but no time to get answers. The management of debates should be better.

Donald Gorrie's suggestion of having fewer but longer debates, with speakers having a little more time, is good. Allowing speakers the opportunity to take up to six minutes may be the answer, always remembering that they do not have to take the whole six minutes. I do not agree with the four-minute limit; I have seen people struggling to make good substantial points because they needed more time to develop their argument. I agree that we need fewer and longer debates. Speakers should be flexible: if the point that they want to make will take only a minute, they should take only a minute and not the full six minutes. We do not need to hear people just for the sake of hearing them. Too often at the moment, people take their four minutes no matter what, even though, in that four minutes, there is not even one gem.

Unless we significantly reduce the time for ministerial speeches, we will not generate any more time for other members to speak. We need a better distribution of the time. Under Donald Gorrie's suggestion, all of us may make fewer speeches in a year; however, when we make those speeches, we will have more time in which to make our points.

It would be wrong to accuse only ministers in this case. They are the most guilty—they are most fortuitous in being allowed to speak for longer than is allotted to them. The front-bench speakers of all parties tend to be allowed a bit more time. It is like a knock-for-knock agreement between two insurance companies; if the minister is allowed to speak for a bit longer, the front-bench speakers of other parties are given longer. That means that, down the line, tail-end Charlies are squeezed off the list.

One way of addressing the issue might be to ask back benchers what they think. I do not think that we should rush to do that—we will survey MSPs after the turn of the year. The Parliamentary Bureau's response said that if we want to circulate a questionnaire, we should go ahead. This is perhaps an area that we should examine in the survey. I suspect that there will be a marked divergence of opinion between back benchers and front benchers.

You can bet that there will be.

Conducting a survey might be a good way to push the issue.

I will not rehearse what Gil Paterson and I have said. The four-minute limit inhibits people from taking interventions. Although one is allowed injury time, one is never quite sure about it. More time for speeches would make members more relaxed and more willing to take interventions. A lot of time is wasted when members stand up to try to intervene and the member who is speaking says that they will not take the intervention. That aspect should be considered.

I want to ask Donald Gorrie how the idea of having fewer but longer debates correlates to the proposal to reduce further the number of three-hour morning debates. He is saying both that three-hour debates are not a good idea and that there should be longer debates to allow more members time to speak.

That is a fair point. My argument is based on the choice of subject. For example, recently there was a whole afternoon on finance. Finance is an important subject, but the particular issue under discussion was a reasonably technical report from the Finance Committee, although members—as they will—strayed beyond that topic. We were encouraged during that debate to speak for a bit longer than usual, whereas in the morning's debate on the Scottish Qualifications Authority was truncated, partly because there was a political shemozzle over a vote of no confidence. Even without that, the timetable was too tight. Often, the Parliamentary Bureau is not clever at distinguishing subjects that need more time from those that need less.

The next issue—debates on a subject rather than a motion—is related to that. Many of our debates are not wildly exciting, because they are on a dull Executive motion that says how marvellously the Executive is running whatever it might be, with amendments by the Opposition that say that the Executive is making a complete mess of things. Alternatively, the debate will be on an Opposition motion that says that the Executive is making a mess of things, with Executive amendments that say that it is not. Such debates are singularly unprofitable. I would prefer real debates on real subjects.

The response from the Parliamentary Bureau indicates that that is a matter for the political parties. We can have subject-focused debates if we wish, but I suspect that neither of the two main Opposition parties will be anxious to change tactics. Perhaps if the Executive set a good example, there would be a good effect, but it is likely that the Executive will continue to project its own policies and opt for self-congratulatory motions. We cannot progress this matter other than by establishing that the facility exists for subject debates.

I agree with the proposition that we include this subject in a questionnaire for members. They might all disagree with me, but they should have the chance to express their opinion.

We will test opinion on the matter.

The presiding officers are aware of the need to manage opening and closing speeches strictly. Recently in particular, they have paid close attention to that to constrain those speeches to the times that have been agreed.

We look forward to George Reid being set on Henry McLeish at some early date.

We dealt earlier with the stages of bills.

One of the principles that I tried to set out was that there should be a period after an amendment is lodged in which it could be adjusted. That is an important concept, which we should not lose sight of.

I do not propose to lose sight of it. If we agree to issue a questionnaire, it would be appropriate to survey members' views on all these issues—the adequacy of time, the need to draft and redraft amendments and so on.

If the issue will be included in the questionnaire, I can live with what has been proposed.

The bureau suggests that we should consider having informal open sessions of lead committees. It is suggested that that is up to committees. I do not think that there is anything in standing orders that would stop committees doing that. That is slightly different from taking the view that it should happen.

Again, maybe we should survey members' opinions on the matter. The mechanism for us would be to draw the attention of committees to the views that are expressed by members in the survey. It would then be up to committees to decide what weight they gave to that request. There is a clear desire to do better on legislation, but committees have many other things to do and must seek to balance their time.

I am convinced by what the Parliamentary Bureau says about members who request to speak in a debate but are not called. Tommy Sheridan would just press his button every time—he probably does. What information would one get by listing those members? I think that Donald Gorrie seeks to establish that members are unable to participate in debates in which they want to speak. The risk lies in the mechanism. What will members use it for? I do not mean anything by my reference to Tommy Sheridan—I was using him merely as an example. Will any member try to misuse the system? Will the mechanism obtain the information that is sought?

I thought that the issue was about guarding one's back. One may not be called to speak in a debate on an important regional issue, but if the fact that one has tried to speak is on the record, one's back will be guarded against political opponents or local people who are misinformed and who might think, for example, that Murray Tosh is not interested in railways in Ayrshire because he did not speak in a debate on that issue. I suppose that the system could be open to abuse, but it would be reasonable for members to press their button if they were in the chamber for a significant length of time.

The difficulty is that the system is not open. In theory, members come to debates, push their buttons and are selected to speak. In practice, we know that parties nominate who will speak and the presiding officers attempt to call all the members who are nominated, while giving reasonable respect to the three individual members. By and large, other members do not attempt to speak. It might be that in the circumstances that Donald Gorrie envisages, the issue would be best addressed if it were felt to be problematic. If a nominated member was not called, he or she might be identified.

That point is related but quite separate. Identifying those members would reveal that a member was expected to speak, rather than the fiction that that member might want to speak but did not do so because they were not on their party's list. The real question is why the member was not on their party's list at that point, rather than why they were not called to speak. If Ken Hughes is right that 0.7 members per debate are not called, do we have a problem?

Given Ken Hughes's comments, would not it be easy for the Presiding Officer to say at the end of a debate, "I apologise to J Smith and R Thomson because they were not called"?

That is a good idea.

If only a small number of nominated speakers were not called, that would seem to be an appropriate step to take.

It would also be on the record.

We should make that helpful suggestion.

I could raise that suggestion at the briefing—

It will be noted in the Official Report.

What you suggest happens on occasion already.

For clarification, are we talking about members who are on the official party speaking lists or members who press their request-to-speak buttons?

I have great sympathy for Donald Gorrie's comments. The way in which our system operates in practice is that a member who presses his or her button to make an intervention is taken off the list again. Who decides whether the member has pressed their button because they want to speak or because they want to make an intervention? I would like to see a system in place.

I do not think that members press their buttons if they want to make an intervention—they do so in order to request to speak.

Throughout the time that Parliament has been in operation, members have risen and started to make their interventions before the Presiding Officer called their name and the microphone was switched on. I am surprised that the official reporters have not complained about that, as I suspect that the first few words may be lost sometimes. I do not think that pressing the button means anything.

In any event, we do not want members to press their request-to-speak buttons during an Executive closing speech in order to register that they wished to speak, because they would then appear in the Official Report as having asked to speak and been knocked back, which would be false.

If a member's party has not put them down to speak, the member must resolve that with their party. The idea that we should identify designated speakers who are not called is fair. If a member were to plot over a period of time that they had lost out two or three times, they would have a legitimate point to raise with the Presiding Officer on the next occasion that they were on the margins. That information would benefit us all for all sorts of reasons.

Perhaps I am confused. I thought that the Presiding Officer instructs members who want to make an intervention to press their request-to-speak buttons. Am I wrong?

You might be right in theory, but in practice, members simply stand up and then the Presiding Officer calls their name and their microphone is switched on.

That is correct. When some members try to intervene but do not get in, they cancel their request to speak, while others leave their request standing. When that occurs, a clerk may go up to ask the member to confirm whether they wish to be added to the speakers list or whether they wish to cancel their request to speak.

That makes the case for changing practice, because it is the member who is speaking who decides whether to accept interventions. That member does not know whether other members have pressed their request-to-speak buttons, as pressing the button is immaterial.

That is right.

Perhaps we should clarify the process, if it causes people to run around feeling a bit confused about whose light is on and whose is not.

Are members happy to issue a questionnaire on those issues a little while after we have issued the other questionnaire? We will try to sample opinion on all the issues that have been raised during our discussion, to provide the basis for further discussion in the Procedures Committee and for further correspondence with the bureau as we try to sift through the areas on which we might be able to reach agreement.

We have continuing work on manuscript amendments, which we will address in the fulness of time. We have already covered the issue of three-hour morning debates.

Earlier, I made a personal point that bureau minutes should be published, at least to the extent that we can see what has been decided. Personally, I am not seeking a resumé of bureau discussions—who said this or that and who said the next thing—but it would be appropriate for members to know what has been discussed and decided. I hope that the bureau will be able to respond to that suggestion reasonably soon.

Will we press the bureau on that point?

That is inferred from sending the bureau your paper, Donald. I am not trying to make too much of an issue out of it, but I hope that the bureau will accord with that suggestion soon. It is bound to give us a response and if that response is yes, I presume that we will be happy. If the response is no, whoever is on the Procedures Committee in January can decide what to do to progress the matter.

That concludes our discussion of the Parliamentary Bureau's response.