Parliamentary Time
Welcome to the 16th meeting in 2005 of the Procedures Committee. Under agenda item 1, which is on our review of parliamentary time, Alex Johnstone, the clerks and I will briefly comment on the visit to the Norwegian Parliament and the videoconference with officials of the New Zealand Parliament.
The visit to Norway was extremely productive. Many things are done well in the Norwegian Parliament, although some things are done less well than they are in the Scottish Parliament. We can learn many lessons from Norway about members' rights, for example. The Norwegian Parliament has more control over its own affairs. The Government there drives the legislation and business, but the Norwegian Parliament has much more control over how it deals with that business than the Scottish Parliament has over how it deals with the Executive's business. We can learn a bit from the Norwegian Parliament in that respect.
The Norwegian Parliament has many interesting ideas. For example, at the end of main debates, when all the party speakers and others have done their bit, there are open sessions in which any member can speak for up to three minutes—in fact, they can do so twice. We were told that that part of the proceedings is often the best, because it allows proper debate to take place, as opposed to members making stodgy speeches.
The Norwegian Parliament takes the budget very seriously. Its committees sometimes meet several times a day at this time of the year, which is the height of the budget season. Members get much more stuck into the budget than we do. That is an interesting process, which we can study.
A proper report will be produced. People in the Norwegian Parliament were kind to us and the officials, with whom we mainly dealt, and the conveners were extremely switched on. The trip was worth while. I invite Alex Johnstone to add to what I have said.
There is only one thing that I want to add. The Norwegian Parliament has responsibilities in addition to those of the Scottish Parliament, but it has the same objectives in trying to be family friendly in the conduct of its business; it tries to make itself suitable for younger people and to encourage women with children to be members, which was interesting.
The Norwegian Parliament has existed for a long time and, rather than establishing principles at the outset, has had to arrive at its position by moving from other traditions. Consequently, it has had to go through a number of processes. It seems to have reached the same conclusions as we have reached with respect to, for example, the need to limit members' speaking time in the chamber in order to keep to timescales for debates. Unfortunately, in order to ensure that everybody's views are properly represented, it has not been able to restrict the total amount of chamber time that is needed and, consequently, despite its efforts, it still has occasional evening meetings, especially at this time of the year.
The visit helped to highlight our dilemma. We cannot severely restrict overall times if we want to allow people's views to be properly represented in the chamber. We must accept time restrictions or create more time for debates in the chamber.
Does Andrew Mylne want to add anything to what has been said?
I cannot think of anything to add.
Andrew Mylne will produce a full written report for us. As I said, the visit was worth while.
Jane McEwan and I took part in the videoconference with two leading officials of the New Zealand Parliament. The Scottish Parliament has many things in common with the New Zealand Parliament, from which we can learn. For example, quite a number of smaller parties are represented in the New Zealand Parliament. If a smaller party does not have a member on a committee, it can add a non-voting member so that it can have a say on the committee without affecting the vote. I think that the pro rata divvying up of speaking times among parties in New Zealand and Norway is somewhat more generous to the smaller parties than it is here. Therefore, the smaller parties have proper opportunities to put their points of view.
The New Zealanders made an amusing point. Like that of the Norwegian Parliament, the New Zealand Parliament's business is not so tightly bound into slices as it is here and there is great pressure from the Government whips on Government members to speak briefly, whereas Opposition members use the full time that they are given and speak at great length. As a result, people thought that the debates tend to be a bit unbalanced because, in the interest of getting business through, the Government side will not fully put its case.
Jane McEwan will produce a note on the meeting. Are there any points that you want to make about the videoconference, Jane?
No.
The videoconference was worth while. We are looking forward to a similar videoconference with the Queensland Parliament to supplement our European studies. Members will receive a full report of the meetings and videoconferences in due course.
Paper PR/S2/05/16/1, on later sittings on Thursdays, has been produced by the clerk, who has pointed out that the Parliament has twice used the device of pretending that Thursday is Wednesday as a way of extending business times on Thursdays. He fairly points out that using such a device occasionally is okay but that, if the device is used regularly, it would be more sensible to change the rules and accept that times on Thursdays as well as on Wednesdays can be extended. Do members have views on that? We could write to the Minister for Parliamentary Business to ask whether she intends the procedure to be more frequently used. If she does, perhaps we should regularise the procedure, whereas, if it is to be used only occasionally, we could let things lie.
The paper is interesting. We should consider what it says with the other options when we are drawing up recommendations. The technique that has been used is worth noting.
Okay. We will mull things over and put the options into the system for consideration in our inquiry on parliamentary time.