Procedures Committee, 21 Jan 2003

Meeting date: Tuesday, January 21, 2003

Official Report 230KB pdf

---

Correspondence

We can spend about 10 or 15 minutes on agenda item 2, on a letter from the Presiding Officer, after which I must go. That will be long enough for us to discuss a general response. Sir David has set out several matters on which he would like us to work. Are members up for it? Do they agree with Sir David? Do members want to take action quickly, or do we need to touch all the bases and find out everybody's thoughts?

Sir David's first question is about First Minister's question time. He would like six questions to be dealt with in 30 minutes, rather than 20 minutes. He cites as good practice the Aberdeen experience, when First Minister's question time lasted 30 minutes. Members appeared to be happy with that. Do members want to make that a recommendation in the CSG report or to consult widely? Members might think that the questionnaire was sufficient.

The answer depends on the decisions that we will make later.

It does.

The proposal cannot be taken in isolation, because it has an impact on other matters.

However, if you could, would you go for the proposal?

I think so.

That is a pretty clear steer.

The more difficult matter is ministerial questions. At the outset, a judgment call was made that questions should go to the Executive in general and that members should have 40 minutes for open questions, during which ministers would pop up all over the chamber to respond. That has been the subject of some criticism inside and outside the Parliament. The media have largely ceased to report ministerial questions, and the Presiding Officer suggests that we should consider a mechanism that would allow more sustained questioning of ministers on a rota basis. That would be more like the departmental question times at Westminster. The rota and the time that is allocated are less important than the principle of having 20, 25 or 30 minutes every week during which people would see a ministerial team, which sometimes comprises one minister and sometimes comprises a minister and deputy ministers. Would members favour a question time at which Malcolm Chisholm and the junior health ministers dealt with health and community care questions, for example?

I have some difficulties with the proposal and I am not sure how other members would respond to it. If I had lodged for consideration an oral question on a health matter and the subject that week was questions to Ross Finnie on fishing or agriculture, I would be prevented from asking the health question. The opportunity to ask the question would be part of the usual cross-section of subjects on which members get to question ministers at question time. I am not concerned about accountability, although it is important. Members aspire to ask questions regularly and they want the opportunity to do so on a variety of subjects. Members would not respond positively to the proposal.

I appreciate that, because of constituency interests, some issues are of more interest to members than are others, so I am also concerned about attendance at the proposed question sessions. We could find that members would attend only if they were interested in the issue of the week—health, for example. At the moment, it is helpful to have questions on a cross-section of subjects.

With respect to the media, the fact is that they do not report question time at the moment. However, that does not mean that we have to change the system. In fact, if we did change the system to one that was based on focused ministerial sessions, is there any guarantee that the media would want to report those sessions? The subject for that week's question time might not be a subject that the media would choose.

I should not have mentioned the media. I was not suggesting that the media should drive our decisions; I am interested in the quality of our dialogue.

Sir David Steel mentioned the media and the convener simply referred to that. To consider changes to question time because the media do not report it would be change for the wrong reasons. I know that that the media are not Sir David's only reason for wanting change.

I am opposed to the proposal. Later in his letter, the Presiding Officer suggests that the first three questions at question time be selected by him. I welcome that suggestion, because it is an opportunity to bring focus to the session.

Would you favour the committee undertaking more detailed work on the proposal? Although it could not be done rapidly, some work might be undertaken to test members' attitudes to the proposal.

Absolutely.

Right.

I disagree with Paul Martin on the matter. A balance must be struck. Question time with the Scottish Executive is a time-filler. We do not get to the bottom of things—ministers do their bit knowing that they will be off the hook in a couple of minutes.

I accept the point that members will want to raise important questions on subjects across the range of the Parliament's responsibilities. One way to overcome that problem would be to have questions to two departments each week. That would allow members to cover a fair range of pressing matters. I do not want to remove the ability to raise an urgent matter that does not fit the emergency situations that the Presiding Officer can allow for. We need a slot in which we are able to press ministers when they fail to answer a question. Many members have complained that we need an "answer time" rather than a question time—that is where the proposal is coming from. The present balance is out of kilter with people's expectations. The media are also turned off—I do not blame them—but because they transmit the Parliament to the public, the result is that we are not reaching people's homes. We need to respond to the situation.

It would be a good idea to consult members and others further afield. We do not need to make a decision on the subject today, but alarm bells are ringing and we need to do something to make question time more accountable. We need to be able to nail ministers whenever that is required.

I would not assume that a change to the format would necessarily allow members the opportunity to nail ministers. I am thinking of the early Susan Deacon in full rhetorical flood.

She was nailing members.

Members might be surprised by the extent to which ministers would dominate answer time if they were given half an hour to respond to questions from around the chamber on all aspects of their briefs. Do not assume that ministers would be the victims. If you approach the suggestion on the basis that we are going to "get" the ministers, first, your analysis of the situation will have been wrong, and secondly, you will be saying to ministers, the Executive and the Parliamentary Bureau, "Don't touch this suggestion with a bargepole." If you want to make a case for your suggestion, you must argue that it also represents an opportunity for ministers to explain and defend general policy, and that there would be advantages for both parties. If you do not do that, there will be firm resistance to changing the situation.

The word that I used was "balance"—we must strike a balance.

You used some other words as well. I think that you also used the word "nail".

I know that—question time is a two-way conversation. It is up to members to be able to put the spike in, but that is not the whole story. I have got to say it the way it is; there is a balance that we must strike. If there comes a day or a time when members have questions that must be asked, answers must be given. It is not really the Opposition aspect that I am thinking about, but the parliamentary aspect. It could well be that members of the Executive's own parties want to spike ministers.

"Spike"?

Or hold them to account.

That is better; "hold them to account" is the neutral way to put it.

Fine, but question time is, nevertheless, really a bit of a farce at present. All I am saying is that we should not just turn the page and move on. We need to come up with some answers.

I do not disagree.

But you are worried about my phraseology.

I am counselling caution in how we approach the issue. We should also be realistic. The process you suggest might make life more difficult for a minister who was not in command, but it would not make life difficult for a minister who was well in command. It might make for better dialogue and better accountability, but there is also the difficulty—which Paul Martin flagged up—of the luck of the draw. At the moment, a member might put a question for six weeks in a row and not get called.

That is the problem.

That is the fundamental issue and the reason why we must consult members. If it has been decided that a debate will be about agriculture, for example, Paul Martin will not be asking any questions. The opposite will be true on matters that do not relate to rural constituencies. There will be difficulties, and we must be realistic about what members aspire to.

Another issue is selecting the accountable departments to which Gil Paterson referred. How would we decide which department should be selected? Who would decide that?

That would probably be done based on the volume of questions on a subject. I cannot think that members would want to ask questions of Mike Watson as often as they would want to ask them of Malcolm Chisholm.

That is the point that I wanted to make.

That kind of discussion would have to be held.

However, that would not improve accountability—it would ensure only that some ministers were asked more questions than others. Gil Paterson made a point about forensic examination of ministers, but we must be careful about ensuring that members are consulted on that. If members come back and say, "This is what we want," we will have to deal with that.

We have had a first hack at the subject, so it might be better to discuss it again next week. I am now going on my exciting trip to Victoria Quay, but the committee will still be quorate without me. If members wish, they can elect a temporary convener and continue the discussion.

I think we should leave it until next week.

Right. Let us do that.

We would be lost without you.

Aw, shucks.

I am sorry to have to close business early, but I am doing so in order to be of service to the civil servants. I am sure that members will agree that that is a most worthwhile cause. Thank you for your attendance and your contributions. We have covered a lot of ground.

Meeting closed at 11:38.