Let us move on to agenda item 3. I am sorry—it is item 2. Heavens—we have only dealt with one item so far. Item 2 is on our next major inquiry. If you thought that our Sewel convention inquiry was fun, you will find this one even more exciting: a review of the parliamentary timetable. Paper PR/S2/05/9/3 was drawn up following our discussions at our recent away day. I seek agreement on the proposals in the paper, particularly on whether to send a call for evidence directly to any of the organisations that are listed or, indeed, to any others.
I accept that the list of proposed witnesses in the paper is a "starting point", but it is a small starting point—a very short list of the usual suspects. The Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations and the Scottish Civic Forum are mentioned, but many more people and organisations are affected by the timetable for legislation and the parliamentary week. We need to go much wider.
I should clarify that the list of organisations in paragraph 3 of the paper is not intended to be a list of witnesses to present oral evidence; it is intended to be a list of organisations that will be sent individual requests for evidence, rather than being expected simply to respond to the general call for evidence.
I know that, but why the SCVO and not the Scottish Trades Union Congress, for example? Why the Scottish Civic Forum and not the Confederation of British Industry?
The list is not meant to be comprehensive; it is a "starting point". If members wish to add other organisations that could be sent individual requests for evidence, I ask them to make their suggestions now or to pass on the organisations' names to the clerks. Karen Gillon has wisely suggested the STUC and the CBI.
And the Federation of Small Businesses.
Are there any other suggestions of organisations that might benefit from being sent specific requests?
I am not sure that it would be helpful for us to sit here and go through all the organisations. I was not at the away day, so I was not privy to the earlier discussions—I am perhaps happy about that. If members think that we should write to particular organisations, they can make suggestions to the clerk. We will not get an exhaustive list, but I would not want us to take evidence—particularly oral evidence—for the sake of taking evidence; we should not do so just to be seen to be balanced or to satisfy some other agenda.
I wonder whether we need an initial call for evidence from MSPs, the Presiding Officer and the parliamentary authorities. We could then come up with proposals on which to consult more widely and ask for responses from groups such as the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, the SCVO and the Scottish Civic Forum. Looking at the draft call for evidence before us, I am not sure what the FSB, for example, would do with it. The paper contains open questions on how we manage our time, but I think that it would be better to come up with specific proposals on which to consult such organisations, following discussion with MSPs and the parliamentary authorities.
In this inquiry, I envisage having a first phase, in which we will consider the information that we have received from the various bodies from which we seek evidence, followed by a more focused consultation on some draft proposals. I do not think that those two things are mutually exclusive. I do not think that we should have a closed start to the inquiry; we should allow anyone who wishes to make comments to do so. That will bring us a wide range of ideas and suggestions and perhaps some fresh thinking on the matter, which might not come from within the Parliament.
I will probably contradict myself now, having just given a list of further organisations to consult. There is a danger that, if we write to some people but not others, we might miss out people whose opinions should be considered. We must be careful about why and on what basis we are consulting people, as well as why we are not directly asking other organisations to give evidence. We must either have a clear rationale as to whom we are asking and why, or we should not ask any organisation specifically and instead issue a general call for evidence.
We should bear in mind the hoo-hah that we had over the timing of question time. The television and radio media felt that they had not been properly consulted on the matter. If we are discussing matters of parliamentary time, I think that it would at least be worth finding out the media's views—although I am not saying that we should necessarily be influenced by them. The media are, after all, responsible for putting us out to a bigger audience, so it is important that their views be taken on board in such an inquiry.
I disagree with the notion that we did not consult the broadcast media about the timing of question time. We might not have agreed with them, but we did consult them.
They did not agree among themselves.
You are right: some parts of the broadcast media had some views and other parts had other views.
There are also the parliamentary media services.
At this stage, the question is whether we want simply to put out a general call for evidence or whether, additionally, we should specify certain organisations and individuals who may have a particular interest. Mark Ballard is suggesting that, in addition to the general call for evidence, we concentrate on the parliamentary authorities rather than wider organisations. That might be the best way forward at this stage; other organisations, including the broadcast media and the written media, will be covered under the general call for evidence. We should write specifically to the parliamentary authorities and to the parties represented in the Parliament at this stage. Do members agree with that suggestion?
There is a suggestion in paragraph 4 of the paper that we should invite the views of the people who were members of the consultative steering group. At this stage, should we treat those people as members of the general public?
Who were the members of the consultative steering group?
They were not from your party or Bruce McFee's.
That is why we cannot remember; we were not on the group.
The members of the group were obviously good people; we should consult them.
We have agreed on the general call for evidence. Do members want to comment on the draft call for evidence in annex A to the paper?
It is sufficiently broad—
If members are content with the draft call—
Must we stipulate that submissions should not exceed six pages of A4? Could we ask respondents to make their points more succinctly and condense their comments to four pages? We might end up with a heck of a lot of evidence if we get six pages from everyone.
The font size might be 26, of course.
If someone had a visual impairment, we would take due account of that, but four pages of standard size 12 Times Roman font—or whatever it is called—should be sufficient.
Double-sided or single-sided paper?
Double-sided paper. Two pages altogether.
Does that include graphs? I take the point. We can stipulate that submissions should not exceed four pages.
I did not think that there was a requirement to produce six pages.
No, the suggestion was for the maximum length of submissions.
On paragraph 10, the consultation should take the form of a general call for ideas, rather than a questionnaire to members.
I agree. Does the committee agree that we should not draw up a questionnaire for members until we have specific points on which to consult them? Members will have an opportunity to put their views in response to our general call for evidence and we might consult them later through a questionnaire on specific options.
No doubt members of the media will be most interested in paragraph 11, on proposed visits to other Parliaments. The information in annexes B and C includes comparative data on other Parliaments and it is suggested that two members and a clerk visit three Parliaments. If we go to Helsinki, we have the option of taking the boat to Tallinn, so we could visit two Parliaments almost for the price of one. Do members have preferences about the visit that they would like to undertake?
Five Parliaments are listed in annex C. Two times five equals 10, but this committee has only seven members.
It is not proposed that we visit all five Parliaments. For example, we have a choice between Helsinki and Oslo, so annex C shows the comparative costs. The intention is to go to the Catalan Parliament, either Brussels or Strasbourg and either Helsinki or Oslo.
We can debate where to go, but if we decide to go to Oslo, should we take direct flights from Scotland? The Ryanair flight from Prestwick goes to a place just outside Oslo. I hate the idea that we must always connect through London or Manchester.
The fares shown are indicative.
The Ryanair flights are a lot cheaper than £643.80.
The figures are indicative and are for illustrative purposes only. The intention is to source the cheapest and most direct flights wherever possible. I propose that we choose, as our three preferred options, Catalonia, Strasbourg and Helsinki.
What happened to Queensland?
The suggestion for a visit to the European Parliament was that we might wish to compare committee weeks and plenary weeks.
The European Parliament sits only for a week every month. It is not fully operational.
There is a specific issue about plenary sittings. People may prefer to go to Brussels.
We just need to watch the timing. That is all that I am saying.
It sits one week every month, I think.
Yes.
Plenary and committee are completely different processes in the European Parliament.
No one from this Parliament has ever been to Strasbourg, as far as I am aware.
Do members agree to those three destinations?
The other question is about the timing for the visits. I would have thought that it was preferable to do them as part of the first phase of the report, before we get specific proposals.
Before November, I think.
October or November is probably the right time to go.
Does Finland not get sort of iced up?
That happens to be a part of the world that I know pretty well. The 100-minute journey ends at the end of October, when the fast boats stop because of the ice, which tends to rip the fibreglass out of the hull.
Bags I not go to Helsinki.
Do members have particular preferences for which visits they would like to make? We cannot all go to Catalonia, I am afraid.
We are not all going to each one, then.
The intention is that two of us should go on each visit.
So we would get one visit each.
Essentially, yes. Are members content with that proposal? We can agree the details later. We have to make a bid to the Conveners Group for support, so we will not have a decision until September.
Do you want our preferences now?
You can indicate your preference to the clerk at some point.
With a justification on no more than four pages of A4.
Do members agree to that course of action?