Procedures Committee, 21 Nov 2000

Meeting date: Tuesday, November 21, 2000

Official Report 86KB pdf

---

Correspondence

Item 2 on the agenda is to note the correspondence that I have had with the Presiding Officer, but I want to make a more substantive point. The correspondence is the culmination of an exchange of letters about the possibility of oral questions to the Presiding Officer, who raised the issue himself. Letters have bounced backwards and forwards over the last few months. In Sir David's letter of 9 November, we have a clear indication that there will be no oral questions to the Presiding Officer, at least not about the Holyrood project. I have responded, offering to look at how the committee might assist in framing Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body question times once the review of corporate governance has been conducted.

I am disappointed—speaking personally rather than as convener—with the outcome of the exchange, because I think that there is a clear case for the Holyrood project to be subject occasionally to formal oral questions. I do not find that the Wednesday evening briefings, which are essentially informal, are a satisfactory way of exercising scrutiny. However, it is clear that the Presiding Officer feels that he is not in a position to answer effectively oral questions on the Holyrood project. It is clear that the Opposition parties do not want questions to the Presiding Officer because they want to hang any damage from the Holyrood project on the Executive rather than the Presiding Officer. The Executive parties do not want to allow questions on the project, because they do not want any political grief as a consequence. We also have to accept that a considerable number of members have indicated that they do not wish to pursue the matter, in that they have failed to take opportunities to lodge questions or sign the motion that I lodged, in my personal capacity, calling for oral questions to the Presiding Officer.

As it is clear that people do not want to pursue the matter, I will not pursue it any further. That is rather a pity, but everyone has their reasons for the positions that they have taken. However, at the end of the correspondence, the SPCB question time is mentioned. We should pursue that issue in our work load.

I take the same position as you on this matter, you will be glad to hear. If the Parliament cannot put questions to the Presiding Officer, who do we put questions to? We are sitting in limbo. A briefing is okay—if people want to take the time for a briefing, that is good—but the Parliament's role in scrutiny and accountability is losing out. I do not think that the Procedures Committee should sit back from the political considerations and not put in place something that allows every member to ask questions in the proper place, which is the chamber. Someone has to be accountable.

I agree with that, but the committee has probably taken the matter as far as it can. Failing a decision by the Parliamentary Bureau to allocate time, I do not see how we can progress the matter. Our role is to discuss procedures and mechanisms. Ultimately, the committee cannot decide on the allocation of time. That decision lies elsewhere.

The correspondence makes it clear that the corporate body and the bureau—which means the political parties—have agreed that there will be no oral questions. I do not think that the Procedures Committee has any standing to pursue the matter. The committee has made its position clear and I have made my own position clear. I cannot see any way to progress the matter, although the committee can come back to it if another angle becomes apparent.

We are certainly setting up a monster that could eat up the whole Parliament if MSPs, for whatever reason, want to duck an issue. The Holyrood project happens to be the hot potato at present, but the procedure could be used later on.

If Henry McLeish decides to propose substituting informal Wednesday evening briefings for question time, we might return to this matter, but I am sure that it is unlikely to happen.

I disagree with Gil Paterson. I do not think that the Parliament is trying to duck an issue. I do not want to labour the point because we have laboured it long and hard. The Holyrood progress group is a cross-party group set up to scrutinise the project. The fact that they are having sessions on Wednesday evenings is a huge step forward in that MSPs can question them on the project's progress.

Murray Tosh has said that corporate body questions can be scheduled into our coming work programme. Nobody is saying that we should not discuss that at some later stage, but I do not agree that we are trying to duck the issue. Murray has already said that there did not seem to be much support for his motion on the subject. People are not getting into a state about the issue and, since we have agreed on it, we should move on.

I do not want to disagree but I did not say "the Parliament". If I did say that, I meant vested interests in the Parliament, which is an entirely different thing. Parliament as a body should have the right to scrutinise everything that happens. When money is being spent, Parliament has the right to ask questions.

To be fair, members have that right through written questions, and there have been lots of written questions on the subject. They have been answered reasonably promptly. As a rule, substantive answers have been issued on the 14th day after questions have been lodged. That part of the process is working well. I personally think that there is a problem in oral questions not being allowed, but we have established that other people are involved in the process who do not share that concern. Oral questions will not take place, at least in the foreseeable future, and we must move on. Can we note the correspondence?

Members indicated agreement.