Procedures Committee, 21 Sep 1999

Meeting date: Tuesday, September 21, 1999

Official Report 287KB pdf

---

Priorities

Agenda paper PR/99/4/14 concerns item 15, the memorandum received by the committee from Mr McCabe in relation to this afternoon's meeting. As I said, we might best deal with that by meeting slightly early this afternoon to discuss our line of questioning. I ask the clerks to prepare a quick aide-mémoire on issues raised this morning that we should raise with Mr McCabe, in addition to the points that he has raised. [Interruption.] Please tell the committee that, John.

I propose that we do not have redrafted standing orders for the next meeting on 5 October, but that final decisions are taken in the light of today's meeting. Thereafter, once the committee has decided on its objectives for each issue, we will come back with concrete proposals that members can discuss at the first meeting after the recess. Is that acceptable?

Members indicated agreement.

We had hoped to have models of rewritten standing orders available by this meeting, but so many other things have been punted to us by other bodies that the work has overtaken us, resulting in a slight slippage.

Meeting adjourned.

On resuming—

Welcome to this meeting of the Procedures Committee. We are pleased to have the opportunity to speak to Tom McCabe and Iain Smith about the paper that they circulated in advance of the meeting. Tom, will you introduce the team to us?

On my extreme left is Robert Gordon. I would be telling a lie if I said that I could remember the long titles that the Executive attaches to his post.

I am currently head of the Executive secretariat. Before that, I was head of the constitution group.

So you are largely responsible for this Parliament, then?

Ultimately, I suppose that I am.

Members will know Iain Smith, the Deputy Minister for Parliament, who is sitting on my left. On my right is John Ewing, who can perhaps inform members—

I am head of the constitutional policy and parliamentary division of the Executive secretariat.

Thank you.

We have the paper in front of us. I will begin by saying that our feeling in this morning's meeting was largely to accept the thrust of the Scottish Executive's paper, which is to adopt a fairly sceptical approach to whether we need wholesale changes at this stage. It appeared that, in general terms, the Executive's paper urged us merely to try to loosen up the existing procedures to establish greater flexibility, with a view to considering further change if that proved to be necessary in the light of experience. That is a philosophically pleasing conservative approach to the process. We thought that, unless there were issues that you wanted to raise, Tom, by way of introductory comment, we would simply take the paper section by section. We want to ask a number of questions and we will raise them as we reach each section.

A brief comment, convener: the Executive recognises that both procedures and standing orders are important. Iain and I are pleased to come to this meeting and to have the opportunity to speak to a committee that recognises the importance of procedures and standing orders in the operation of the Parliament. In the memorandum that we submitted, we have tried to reflect our hope of seeing a fairly flexible situation develop with the Parliament's standing orders, but not one that would undermine the certainty and consistency that is required.

For that reason, we welcome the measured approach that you have taken. To echo one of the points made in the memorandum, we are aware that this is a young Parliament and that the standing orders have not been fully tested under wide-ranging circumstances. The Executive is aware of that, and we hope that the Procedures Committee will take a similar view.

We are concerned that the standing orders that evolve will help to raise the standing of this Parliament in the eyes of the public. That is important. The public must see, through the operation of the standing orders, a Parliament that is trying its best to live up to the founding principles that the people of Scotland endorsed when the Parliament was created.

I hope that our memo has been of some assistance. We are here today to expand on it where necessary and to be of some assistance.

Thank you. We take the introduction to your document as read—it is broadly shared ground. I would like now to take each paragraph in turn, and ask whether members have any points to raise. That takes us to questions. You have recently had an opportunity in Parliament to respond to a question on this matter, but we wonder whether you want to say a bit more on question 5—whether questions are being used for the purpose for which they were intended—because there is a feeling that they have gone beyond what was expected.

It would be useful to expand on the view that we tried to put across when we answered the question earlier this month. I say very strongly that the Executive fully realises that the Opposition's job is to test the Executive, to probe and to question. Under no circumstances is the Executive advancing a position that would limit that ability. There is, however, a strong view that we must be aware of parliamentary processes in terms of efficiency and the call on the public purse.

This Parliament is not over-enthusiastic to duplicate Westminster—although hundreds of years of Westminster experience should not be overturned simply because of its source—but if a huge amount of time is being used to obtain information that is, if not readily available, then relatively readily available through other sources, we would legitimately want Parliament to examine that. I want to underline that the Executive recognises the job of Opposition parties. Despite what I have said, there is no intention of making that job more difficult.

Is it envisaged that ministers are likely to respond to questions by saying that the information sought is on the public record and that the member should go to the Scottish Parliament information centre? That has not been done to date, but is that development expected?

I tried to indicate that when I answered the written question. We intend to audit the questions that are lodged and to indicate on which occasions a member could have obtained the information through other sources. That would help us, and help to inform the Parliament. It would also assist the Parliament in deciding whether we are using our resources to best effect. A better and more effective use of those resources could lead to the development of other mechanisms to help Opposition parties to probe and test the Executive.

I understand the difficulty in terms of cost and resources, but the committee has discussed one or two ways in which that problem could be alleviated. Rather than the Executive being forced into what would be tantamount to rebuking members by saying that the information could be found elsewhere, as a first step the clerks might suggest to members that the information that they want is available elsewhere. Thereafter, if members insist on asking the question, they get what is coming to them. Assistance to the clerks in providing that service would be helpful.

I do not think that the Executive would object in principle to that suggestion. I am less clear about the practicalities of implementing it, as it may in some instances put the clerks in a difficult position. If that is not the case, we would want to encourage members to get the best possible advice up front. If the member chooses to ignore that advice, the answer could indicate that the information was available elsewhere.

We should move on to the Executive's proposals on oral question time, which broadly accord with our view. My question is on paragraph 7(b), which is about expanding closed question time to ministers to allow supplementaries from other MSPs at the discretion of the Presiding Officer. The immediate practical difficulty that we see is that, whereas there are about 20 questions at present, the number would be unlikely to be more than 12 or 13 if the proposal was implemented. What is the Executive's feeling about expanding question time, possibly by 15 or 20 minutes, to keep a proper balance between the number of questions and the desire to bring in additional members?

The Executive's mind is not closed on that proposal but—and this is likely to be the theme of the afternoon—the Parliament is still young, the current system is still developing and there should be some time for the new system that is proposed in the memorandum to bed in and be assessed. If it is then felt that the new system limits the number of questions, we should return to the subject, but we should allow the Presiding Officer's discretion to have an effect on the Parliament and we should have time to assess that.

This morning, the committee discussed the question of bedding in a new system rather than undertaking wholesale changes. There was a fairly clear view that one of the changes that could be introduced immediately was to have a slightly longer question time—lasting an hour—which would allow roughly the same number of questions and the supplementaries to be taken. It is only if that does not work that we should look at other changes. Are you saying, Tom, that you would not want to lengthen the time to an hour as part of the immediate changes? If that did not happen, there would be a concomitant reduction in the number of questions being answered.

Yes. I would not want to lengthen question time at the moment for a number of reasons. There is an overall concern about the time that is available to Parliament. The Executive's firm view is that, increasingly in the weeks ahead, as legislation moves into committees and reports come back to the Parliament, parliamentary time will become scarce. We have a presumption against reducing the other parts of the parliamentary timetable at this time because we are still such a young parliament and we are learning as we go.

The change that is currently proposed is useful; the First Minister was keen to advocate it and members have been keen to have it implemented. Perhaps there is a responsibility not only on the Presiding Officer and the Executive, but on members themselves to try to be as concise as possible in the knowledge that the more concise they are—and the more disciplined about unnecessary supplementaries if answers have already been given—the more questions will be taken within the time. This is a change to a system that has been in place only for a short time—there is nothing to suggest that the change has to run for an inordinate length of time without being reconsidered.

Surely ministers have an obligation to be concise as well—the more concise ministers are, the more questions can be taken. It has not gone without notice that ministers' answers are sometimes longer than necessary. If we were to start at 2.15 pm on a Thursday afternoon rather than at 2.30 pm, we could have an hour for question time. We would forgo only 15 minutes of our lunch, which might do us all good.

I have yet to come across an MSP who enjoys a two-hour—or even a 30-minute—lunch. In the main, members usefully employ the time between 12.30 pm and 2.30 pm on Wednesday and Thursday by catching up with phone calls, dealing with constituency business or receiving lobbies from various interest groups. On one Thursday next month, there will be an appropriate lobby from Scottish Women's Aid, which will take up a large amount of MSPs' lunch time.

It is easy for people who deliberately misunderstand the timetabling of Parliament to suggest that there is a two-hour lunch break. It is my—and even Mr Mike Russell's—experience that members are heavily occupied in that time.

I am sure that Mr Mike Russell did not mean to suggest that members were abusing their lunch times.

Absolutely not.

With respect, convener, the second point about the length of ministers' answers has not been answered. That is a genuine concern.

Everyone in Parliament has a responsibility to be as concise as possible while imparting the maximum amount of information. If back-bench members have to be concise, ministers must have the same responsibility.

My point is in response to Mike's comments. I do not share the view that ministers' answers have been overly long. A look at the Official Report shows that answers are fairly short and sharp. Members bob up and down fairly regularly during question time. However, taking Tom's point, we should all pay attention to the length of questions.

I want to move on to the paragraph about the procedure for written questions, in which we wondered about your views on how the Parliament might deal more satisfactorily with emergency or urgent questions. The point was raised in relation to the question asked during the recess about Continental Tyres, which the Presiding Officer suggested should be given priority. However, answers came through no faster. Although we do not want to get into the situation at Continental, we feel that there is a clear need for a fast response to certain questions.

There are a number of issues to address on this matter, not least the fact that, whereas, on average, 1,400 Scottish questions are tabled at Westminster a year, 1,300 questions have been lodged here in the first three months. There is a considerable strain on civil service resources in dealing with those questions—any answer that I give has to be seen in that context. Furthermore, the new Parliament was allocated a certain amount of money for its operating procedures. If we believe all that we read in the newspapers, that money, too, is under considerable strain.

In our first weeks of operation, we recognised that we were in a unique situation and that, because of the date on which we took our powers and the date on which we went into recess, it would be unfortunate for MSPs in such a unique situation not to have access to answers to written questions. Although no precedent has been set for answering questions in future recesses, there is a mind within the Parliament that that should happen.

At Westminster, no answers are given during recesses. It would be less than responsible of us not to recognise that, during a summer recess, there are breaks in the resources available to answer questions and that staff take holidays. At such times, the system comes under considerable strain. Perhaps because of the initial enthusiasm attached to the new Parliament at the start of the recess, the system came under undue strain and members felt additional frustration that answers to their questions were taking a bit longer than expected. However, as I outlined, there were understandable reasons for that, of which the majority of people were aware.

We understand the pressures on resources during the recess. However, perhaps MSPs who wanted it to be seen that they were not on holiday in the summer went about their work in the best way that they could—by asking questions. Although your comments are of great interest, we are not questioning the principle of asking questions in the recess. Sometimes, when a situation is unfolding, a question will lose its point without a reasonably speedy answer. It has been suggested that the Presiding Officer could employ fast procedures to prioritise certain questions or to designate urgent questions. Are there any circumstances in which the Administration would agree that a question that might otherwise end up in the summer queue could merit a fast response?

Apart from during the recess, there is a facility for asking emergency questions, the use of which is at the Presiding Officer's discretion. I apologise for referring back to Westminster, but it is relevant. Where the facility is available for members to mark questions as urgent, a large percentage of questions suddenly become urgent. The Executive finds it hard to envisage such a system not being abused.

We anticipated that but thought that a system that mediated urgency through the business manager for the political groups or through a decision of the Presiding Officer would be a protection against abuse of the system.

That might be helpful. The existing work load of business managers would have to be taken into account. There are a number of times during the day when business managers have to be available. At the Parliamentary Bureau today, business managers expressed concern about their need to be contacted in certain situations. I do not think that the Executive would be hostile to the committee's proposal, but the availability of business managers for proper consultation might become an issue.

The idea was that people would be less inclined to abuse the system if questions had to be put through their party's business manager, who—to put it bluntly—would not let members get away with much. If the Presiding Officer raps a member's knuckles, well, big deal. However, if a member's business manager tells him or her to behave, it is a problem. That is why we thought it was a good idea.

As I said, it is not an unreasonable suggestion and we can consider it in more detail.

There is a danger that a member would expect the business manager to have a good reason for knocking back a question, so more of the business manager's time might be used up as he defends his decision. What is needed is for someone who is beyond challenge to make the decision.

Such an angelic figure does not exist in the Parliament.

I have a lot of sympathy for what Tom McCabe is saying in terms of the weight of written questions, particularly during the summer recess, but I would be sorry to see them lost. The expectation of members that a question will be answered in two weeks during the summer recess is, perhaps, unreasonable and it might be that a longer period should be considered acceptable. The trade-off for that concession would be the ability to ask urgent questions during the recess. Such questions would have to be regulated and would have to be the exception rather than the rule.

I think that that is reasonable.

We are happy with that and will try to propose something in our report.

We have covered the next section, have we not? It has to do with the information centre.

The next section deals with the rota of oral questions to ministers. We decided this morning that we would not pursue the issue of the rota of oral questions at this stage, although we will want to keep it under review. If we change the shape of question time and find that, in practice, ministers are not being sufficiently scrutinised, we may come back to the issues of times and specific slots for ministers. At the moment, however, we are not minded to depart from the general spirit of what is being proposed. We do not have any questions on that section.

One issue that has not been addressed is the time by which questions must be lodged—the eight-day rule. I realise that there are pressures on the Executive in terms of the preparation work that is required to face 30 questions at once plus three open questions, but many people feel that the eight-day rule is unduly restrictive, particularly in terms of topicality. Some people find it difficult to understand why, in an open and accessible Parliament, we cannot have more topical questions on the big issues.

The minister has indicated that he is not terribly sympathetic to a change in that rule. Why is that? I would have thought that cutting the notice even to six days, or to the Friday before the question time, would assist the situation.

The time scale for First Minister's questions has been altered, which will aid topicality. At Westminster, the deadline is 14 days. The Scottish Parliament has acknowledged that that could be improved—hence the eight-day rule. It comes back to the whole issue of having the resources to deal with questions—to turn them around and to have answers prepared. Every day that is shaved off the deadline disproportionately increases the pressures on the system. For that reason, there is some merit in maintaining the eight-day deadline. We should remember that the deadline for First Minister's questions was further shortened, as the scope of questions to the First Minister is more limited than it is for general questions.

The minister will admit, however, that people at Westminster tend to go for holding or rote questions. The consultative steering group report contains much criticism of that and the form of our question time deliberately did not follow that model. However, even with the reduction in time, one is beginning to see a tendency towards catch-all questions that allow members to ask a number of things. The clerks and others think that that is against standing orders, but there will be more of it unless we have more topicality.

If catch-all questions are a problem that is developing in the Parliament, we should take active steps to discourage them. They go against the spirit that it was hoped question time would embody in the new Parliament. It is up to the parties to encourage members to ask questions that are more concise and less general.

The point is that we want to do that, but feel that it is difficult to raise topical issues because of the period of notice.

The Executive is firm in its view that eight days does not seriously detract from topicality.

A week is a long time in politics.

That may be, but there must always be a balance, in Parliament and in life. In many respects, the answer depends on the resources that we are prepared to apply. If it is Parliament's will that there should be considerable resources to respond more quickly to questions and to allow shorter deadlines, so be it. However, we need to consider whether that response would be disproportionate for the sake of cutting the deadline by two days.

We acknowledge that, if Parliament accepts new standing orders to allow more supplementaries, the overall number of questions taken will automatically be reduced. However, the list of balloted questions could realistically be cut from 30 to 20, which would require less time to prepare. That may be the way in which the circle is squared. Questions could then be lodged later.

That seems a practical suggestion; if the committee is happy with it, it would be reasonable to consider it. However, the Executive would hope that it would not be seen as a device to limit the number of questions that can be lodged.

As someone who has often answered such questions, may I offer an observation? Opening questions up to other supplementaries increases the amount of work that is needed to answer individual questions, as more ground has to be covered.

A trade-off might be possible.

Is what John Ewing has said really the case? Presumably, in briefing the minister for one supplementary, you anticipate every possible supplementary.

One can take a view that is focused on a member's particular interest, and make a reasonable assessment of what the follow-up is likely to be about. If the opportunity to ask a supplementary is widened to include members who are coming from other directions, a broader approach is required.

You have our files, do you?

Over time, we build up a perspective on what members' interests are.

The First Minister gets considerably more briefing for questions than does a minister, as questions to the First Minister are much more open.

That casts light on an aspect of it that I am sure many of us—

You are not ruling out what we just said, Tom?

No.

That takes us to the matter of voting. The first issue is whether there is a need to alter decision time. Positions are clear on that. In paragraph 20 there is an acknowledgement that there are times when decisions can be taken away from decision time. Do you see any need to change the current arrangement?

In short, no.

There are two reasons. The present situation assists ministers considerably in planning their diaries. As someone who operates not only as the Minister for Parliament, but as a business manager, and who receives requests from members to attend to committee business and to other issues that arise, I think that to move away from the 5 o'clock decision time would severely limit the ability of members to meet both their parliamentary obligations and their unplanned constituency obligations. Moving away from 5 o'clock decision time would reduce the flexibility that is available to members and ministers. The Parliament already has a good system, which should be kept. In the short time in which we have been operating, the system has proved its worth.

Are there any other questions on that point? No.

We will move on to the section on the effectiveness of the voting system. We felt that we would wait to hear what the bureau proposed, and then comment on any changes that are suggested. Do members have any questions on this? No.

We will move on to timetabling. Much the same might be said about it: it is in hand.

Yes.

We had a question about the chairing and conduct of debates.

I do not know whether timetabling is the right place to raise the issue that detained us briefly this morning, which is the allocation of parliamentary time, particularly to members' bills, or whether you would like to raise that at the end?

We have that listed as one of the additional points at the end.

The issue in this section is the summing-up of debates. The ministerial view is that ministers should always do so, but Mike Russell thinks that the movers of motions should do so. You might wish to take the opportunity to ask a question about that, Mike.

My position is well known, as is Tom's—it is in the paper. The committee has agreed to consider this at the next meeting. I think—speaking crudely—that it will come down to a matter of votes at that meeting. The fact that Tom and I disagree on this is recorded. It will not add much light if we just repeat our arguments.

In that case I will accept the opportunity to move on.

We would like to raise a point that arose in connection with paragraph 29 in your paper, Tom: ministerial statements. Opposition members appreciated the opportunity to see the statement on the water industry in advance of the debate last week, which allowed us to frame questions. We are concerned that there will be circumstances under which it would be reasonable for a debate to follow questions. In such circumstances, is it intended to make the minister's statement available even earlier, to give members time to research and prepare positions? Alternatively, will it be acceptable to detach the statements and questions from the debate, which could follow at a later date? Perhaps you will look favourably upon both, depending on the circumstances.

There may often be circumstances in which it is difficult to give useful advance notice of a minister's statement. I think that the Executive would be minded to do its best to make the statement available to Opposition parties in advance.

There is a worthwhile caveat here: there may be genuinely difficult circumstances, because of sensitivity or because the minister is at the other end of the country and is not able to sign things off. The Executive has a general will to make statements available in advance whenever that can be done.

When that is not possible, would it be the Executive's intention to ensure that any debate following the acquisition of the minister's statement was reasonably timed? That would give Opposition parties time to reflect on the statement and prepare for a debate.

I do not think that there is an unwillingness to take soundings on a particular issue. In the majority of instances, Opposition parties were perfectly content with the second kind of statement—a statement followed by questions followed by a debate. If there was a very strong view from Opposition parties that, on a particular occasion, a statement followed by questions with a debate at a later date was more appropriate, the Executive would do its best to consider that.

I notice that, in his note to the committee, Kenny Gibson asks for all statements by 5 o'clock the night before. I appreciate his point of view. We are establishing a reasonable practice of statements—and motions—being supplied as early as possible, but I am sure that the minister will be mindful of the need to keep that practice going in the long term, so that we can encourage constructive debate. As I said this morning, in reality, the earlier material is seen, the more likely we are to have an informed debate; the later it is seen, the more likely we are to have a rammy.

Yes. We are keen to ensure that, as in the Parliament, constructive relationships develop at a reasonable pace.

That was a very diplomatic answer. Your last paragraph is number 30. In response, our intention, having taken evidence, heard from the business managers and taken responses from members, is to arrive at a set of recommendations at our next meeting on 5 October, with a view to reporting to Parliament after the recess. However, we wished to raise three issues with you, minister, which were not among our current priorities but which might lend themselves to a little bit of consideration.

The first is about extending meetings of the Parliament. We wonder what your view is on the balance of advantage between extending meetings to, say, 7 o'clock on a Wednesday and/or a Thursday, as opposed to moving the meetings into Wednesday mornings.

You will be aware, convener, that we submitted a view to the Parliamentary Bureau, which discussed it. The original suggestion was that, first, Monday afternoons become available for committees. That was envisaged by the original consultative steering group report. Tuesdays are available for committees and we could consider Parliament meetings, when necessary, on Wednesday mornings, accompanied by a maximum of two committee meetings. When that was discussed by the Parliamentary Bureau, there was a view that we could put that suggestion on hold at the moment. The Executive reserved its position on that. There was an alternative view that we could consider extending the hours, for example into a Wednesday evening.

We want to be mindful that the concept of a family-friendly Parliament—an often used phrase—was also embodied in the consultative steering group report. Some members have strong views about the hours that should be available to Parliament and about how we should use them.

At the moment, it is best for me to say that while the Executive's mind is not closed on the issue, we are aware that it is extremely sensitive and important for some people. Before any firm decisions are made, the wide variety of views that exists should be considered.

Thomas has represented the discussion of the bureau well, but the option of having two committees and Parliament meet on Wednesday mornings has substantial disadvantages, as was discussed at the meeting. There is the disadvantage of depriving members of the right to take part in meetings of the Parliament. It has proved difficult enough to avoid conflicts when scheduling committee meetings, let alone trying to do so when there may be business in the Parliament. I understand also that there is a fairly strong financial implication because the official report in particular is strongly stretched and it would be stretched even further were committees to meet on Wednesday mornings.

The Parliament's family-friendly nature should be defended strongly, but as I said this morning at the bureau, there are many occasions when people who work in other aspects of life have to work overtime or work late. Provided that it was carefully structured and done in such a way that it was understood that it was one aspect of life, the committee should look upon it positively.

This morning, there was a positive response to the proposal, but as one of a range of options. I pointed out that on Wednesdays we could gain almost as much by adding an hour and a half or two hours to the end of the day as we would by having a morning meeting, particularly if Parliamentary Bureau business was dealt with then. That could be a way of increasing the time available for business while still protecting the committee nature of the Parliament, which is an important aspect of the Parliament and which the committee conveners have spoken about strongly.

If I were Sir David I would have said, "Is there a question coming?"

Perhaps the official report could put a question mark at the end of it.

I want to stress strongly the fact that we are discussing ways in which to achieve the same ends. The Executive is strongly of the view that we need to utilise as much time as possible in order to ensure that the business of the Parliament is properly conducted and, quite frankly, to reassure the public—who fund the public purse—that the Parliament is taking every opportunity that it can to expedite its business. That is important, if for no other reason than to minimise the opportunity for misrepresentation of the way in which we go about our business.

One thing that Andy said this morning that was of interest to me was that if we sat a little later on Wednesdays, which I think we are sympathetic to, it would allow people to come and see the Parliament. There are lots of people who work from nine to five and who would like to see the Parliament. That measure would make the Parliament more open.

I would like to make a couple of points, the first in response to what Mike said about overtime. There is no particular concern about whether MSPs do overtime, because we probably all do considerably more hours than the general public does, but we must bear in mind that if we are doing overtime in the Parliament, that has a knock-on effect on the staff. They are obliged to work overtime and that would cost money.

Practically, it is possible to have committee meetings on Wednesdays but it is probably not practical to have them on Thursdays. If members from remote constituencies wish to get home at a reasonable hour, or at all, on a Thursday evening, finishing at 5 o'clock may allow them to do so but finishing at 7 o'clock may not.

It is also worth stressing that it would be foolhardy not to acknowledge the great wave of enthusiasm that there is for the committees of the Parliament to meet. There is every indication that that enthusiasm will grow rather than diminish. Monday afternoons and Tuesdays are available for committees, but as the committees perform their roles of dealing with legislation and producing reports, the founding principle of this Parliament—that it be geared strongly to the work of committees—may force us to re-examine the time available to committees.

We have two other matters to address. An issue has arisen that was not part of our original priority framework, and which you may not have had time to consider. The two single-member parties in the Parliament at present have no facility to raise anything other than members' motions. In other words, as things are structured, they cannot propose motions on policy matters.

Only 15 half days are allocated to Opposition parties. Has the Executive looked at, or could it look sympathetically at, some device that would allow the occasional use of some time to allow the one-member parties to introduce matters of general policy through motions? It need not be a half-day; it could be an hour's slot to put those parties on the same footing as the other parties that have Opposition days.

We would be prepared to look at the 15 half days that are available to non-Executive parties; we would consider sympathetically a redistribution of the slots that are available. Perhaps the single-member parties that you mentioned could take one of those slots, or the other parties could assist them by giving them an hour from one of those slots, rather than a full slot. That would be a sympathetic consideration of the requirements of the two single-member parties.

We felt that, if the Parliament were considering expanding Parliament meeting time, it might be more generous to allocate some time from that substantially greater allocation than from the already tightly controlled 15 half days.

I fully appreciate your point, convener, but we approach the matter with different perspectives on generosity.

You are being generous with other people's time.

We are proposing to be generous with yours, to be fair.

We are proposing to be generous with the Parliament's time. That is a key issue. As the Opposition is given 15 half days, it seems reasonable that the Greens and the Scottish Socialist party—taking the issue of independence aside—should be given half a day. The general issue, which we will come to, concerns to whom the time belongs. The Parliament clearly allocates all its time—with certain exceptions—to the Executive. In those circumstances, surely the Parliament should be able to say that it wants a little of its time to be allocated to minority parties that can play a full part in our proportional system.

There is a great distinction between what Mike would consider to be Parliament time and what the Executive and I would consider to be Executive time. Our firm view is that there are certain slots of time that are allocated to non-Executive parties—with certain slots of time allocated for the work of committees—and that the remainder of the Parliament's time is for the Executive to advance its programme. That is why we have an Executive, and the remainder of the time should be available to the Executive for that purpose.

A compromise may be that those of us who have an interest in this Parliament could examine the time that is available to all of us, to decide, if we had a concern for single-member parties, what we could offer up to alleviate their concerns.

In the interests of accuracy, I should say that that view was raised in the committee this morning. It is not necessarily the view of the whole committee, or even of a majority of the committee.

I understood that, convener.

If nobody has any related issues to raise, our last question concerns members' bills. The matter is raising some concern, both in regard to the allocation of time in Parliament meetings and how committee time might be allocated. We are aware that there is a possibility that some bills might impact on committees that are already heavily committed, and we wondered what proposals the Executive might have or be prepared to introduce to allocate time for those purposes.

From the Executive's point of view, this matter remains open. I qualify my remarks by saying that this is an introductory discussion and that, as yet, the Executive has no firm view. Several suggestions could be taken up, one of which is that a certain number of slots for the consideration of members' bills should be made available in the Parliament during the year. The next consideration would be whether that time should come from what I consider to be Executive time, or whether it should come from the time that is available to non-Executive parties and Executive parties.

If members felt that the time that is available to the Executive could be reduced to accommodate a set number of slots for members' bills, the trade-off would be recognising that any remaining time would be time for the Executive. We could be in great danger of—with good intentions—so severely limiting the time that is available to the Executive as to make it difficult for it to do its necessary work, to progress its legislative programme.

There are different ways in which to approach the issue. The Executive is keeping an open mind. The matter requires further consideration by everyone in the Parliament who has an interest.

One reservation that I have about the suggestion of setting aside a fixed number of slots for members' bills is that some people may interpret that as a cap on the number of such bills. At some point, we will have to develop a system that recognises that although it is legitimate for some time to be allocated to members' bills, everyone else has a call on legitimate slots, including non-Executive parties and committees. If there is a natural limit on the time available for those other interests, perhaps there should be a natural limit on the time available for members' bills.

I welcome Tom McCabe's statement, because his analysis is more sympathetic than I had expected—perhaps I do not give him enough credit. Unfortunately, that is now on the record. However, the reality is that we do not know how much time a member's bill will take. As we have discussed this afternoon, we do not know how much time an Executive bill will take; there will be differences. In those circumstances, our experience in our first two—possibly three—years will inform standing orders about the time that bills will take to go through.

Our real problem is that each member is allowed to introduce two bills in a four-year session, and, by my calculation—excluding the Presiding Officer—that would be more than 260 bills. We will have to be very careful. If the Executive is willing to be flexible on the matter, all the parties will be flexible; we will have to suck it and see.

Ministers should be excluded from that calculation as well, so there would not be quite as many as 260 bills—perhaps 200.

The ministers are excluded as well—good.

I think that that exhausts the topic. It remains for me to thank the ministers for coming this afternoon. I hope that you will allow us to firm up some of our proposals following your answers. I imagine that we might have differences in some details further down the line, but today's process was both useful and helpful. The committee is obliged to you.

On behalf of myself and my deputy, who has accompanied me, I offer sincere thanks. We have enjoyed the experience and we thank the committee for a sympathetic hearing.

Meeting closed at 17:08.