Non-Executive Half-Sitting Days
Item 3 is a paper on non-Executive half-sitting days. It relates to the plea that was made to us at our previous meeting by the Green party member, Robin Harper, on behalf of himself, Tommy Sheridan and Dennis Canavan. The paper provides the committee with various options; there is no recommendation as such, but it is suggested at the end that the committee may feel that there is no scope at present to increase the amount of non-Executive time. The difficulty for us is in identifying where we would find the three half days.
There is also an issue of principle. My view—and it may seem harsh—is that there is no merit in the argument.
First, Dennis Canavan is not a member of a political party, but an individual, so I am not sure why he should be allocated a half day of Parliament's time.
Secondly, I believe that Robin, Tommy and Dennis are called frequently in major debates and are permitted a healthy share of speaking time. It has also been a long time since I saw one of the members in question—Tommy—in the chamber.
I think that there is a good deal of fluff around this issue. I am not sure whether it is necessary for these members to be allocated time—or whether they deserve it—on the basis of their share of the vote or participation in the work of the Parliament.
I take a diametrically opposite view from Andy. When we discussed this previously, I said that the issue was not Dennis Canavan, but independent members. I regret that this paper still refers to Dennis Canavan—my view is that he features in this argument only as an independent member. We must not forget that any improvements that we make to standing orders are designed not for the next three or four years, but for the foreseeable future. It is not inconceivable that there may be one or more independent members of this Parliament forever—perhaps not Dennis, but others.
Equally, there may be minority parties. We need to remember that, under our voting system, representatives from those parties have been duly elected. At present the Scottish Socialist party and the Scottish Green party sit as minority parties. The question is not whether individuals from those parties are called to speak—I am glad that they are, although some people resent the fact that they are called so often—but whether they have the right to participate in other aspects of the Parliament's work. We have established—although not without difficulty—the right of all members to serve on committees. Any party should be entitled to the opportunity to introduce its business at least once during the year. With regard to the Scottish Socialist party and the Scottish Green party, the argument is quite clear—they should have the minimum amount of parliamentary time that can be given them, which is one half day.
The case of Dennis Canavan is different, as he is an independent member. However, it might be argued that independents should have a share in non-Executive business. I am not quite so certain of that, but it would make sense for a group of three or four independents to be offered one half day.
One of the staff of the Scottish Parliament information centre has pointed out that standing orders contain a contradictory provision, which we will clear up. The independents and minority parties did not quite reach the magic figure of five members, but that should not disqualify them from participating fully and appropriately—for this is not a huge allocation—in the work of the Parliament.
I support, therefore, the request of the Scottish Green party and the Scottish Socialist party and am inclined to support the idea that independents as a group should be allocated one half day. That comes to three half days—if we met until half past 6 on two nights for three weeks we could manage it. That would be a small price to pay.
So you believe that we should agree to the half day and link that to the general discussion about extending the parliamentary week—in other words, that we should not take anyone else's time away from them, but use the extra time?
Yes.
I will not rehearse all the points that Mike has made, but I will endorse them. This Parliament was elected by proportional representation, and it is only right that members should be represented proportionate to their numbers. I take the view that Dennis Canavan is an individual member, rather than the representative of a party, but we should make some room for independents in the future. Independently minded people or parties such as the Highlands and Islands Alliance—I was about to say the Highland brigade—need to know that the Parliament is thinking about their needs.
I should perhaps declare an interest. For quite a long time I was solitary as a councillor and had serious problems. There is a distinction between two parties which happen to be represented by one member each at the moment and an independent. The two parties deserve an opportunity to put forward their particular concerns in a reasonable debate.
As Mike said, there may be independents—in the plural—in future. One way to deal with them is to write into the rules that they receive favourable consideration when it comes to members' debates. A number of them are locally based, so they might raise specific local issues. The parties that are represented in the Parliament should have an opportunity to raise debate on a subject at least once a year. There should be some provision to allow independents to raise issues, but they are not a party and should be treated differently.
For the record, I am not doing down those from smaller parties—I recognise the proportionality of the Parliament. What I said is that they do quite well out of the current system. In terms of the time that we have available, what is being suggested is going too far.
The difficulty that I have in agreeing with that, Andy, is that—as Donald said—Dennis is an independent and can introduce constituency business in members' time. The others can make speeches in debates, ask questions and make their points in committee. The advantage for the Scottish National party and the Conservatives is that they can lodge a motion on a broad political issue and have it debated. There is no mechanism for the small political parties to do that. With respect, that is the gap in what Andy has just said.
It has to be decided whether to give the smaller parties that opportunity or, indeed, whether to give them a half day or simply a slot. We have some relatively short debates. There may be merit in not considering them to be entitled to a full half day. One of them might wish to raise a matter that would sustain a fairly substantial debate. For example, Robin Harper might introduce a discussion on genetically modified foods.
I am inclined to be sympathetic to the case that Mike has made this morning. The difficulty is that it requires a change to the standing orders. We cannot simply say, "Give them a half day" without impacting on the time allocated to the Opposition parties. We would have to expand the time available through the standing orders or write something into the standing orders to entitle the small parties to some kind of platform. The matter could be taken care of if the Executive were willing to schedule an opportunity for a debate initiated by the minor parties without any need to change the standing orders.
I suggest that we raise that matter with Mr McCabe this afternoon. He may not have a definitive response, but he could think about it and respond in time for our next meeting. That would allow us to come to a decision on the matter—we cannot really decide today because our decision might require a change to the standing orders.
There are a number of options, Murray, and you have pointed out one or two of them. Could we ask the clerks to produce an options paper on what changes to the standing orders might be necessary in order to recognise the right of minority parties represented in the Parliament to a minimum of a half day? I am not saying that we will implement any such alteration, but at least we will see clearly what the options are.
Could the clerks add to the report to that effect? That is agreed.