Procedures Committee, 24 Jan 2006

Meeting date: Tuesday, January 24, 2006

Official Report 230KB pdf

---

Parliamentary Time

I am sorry that Margo MacDonald and Patrick Harvie have been kept waiting. We thought that we could sneak in an item, but we did not allow sufficient time.

I can feel my life ebbing away, convener.

It has given us a fascinating insight.

In the absence of objections, I will tell you what the Parliamentary Bureau will say: "Over to you."

We are grateful to you for coming. A number of members signed up for the second of our sessions, but several who were hoping to come today cannot. We look forward to hearing what you have to say. We can either deal with you as a double act or we can have ladies going first—if that is allowed nowadays. If Margo has her innings first, Patrick will be allowed to intervene if he wants; then, when Margo has finished her innings, Patrick will have his innings and Margo can comment on that. Is that acceptable?

Let us do something radical—let him go first.

Okay. Patrick, I ask for your thoughts on any issues. We will make notes and question you as we go along, if we want clarification. Margo is also allowed to chip in and cover all the issues that you want to cover. You will be aware of the focus of the committee's inquiry, but it is open season for good suggestions on any subject.

Thank you. I did not expect such a formal session. If I am limited to a few general points—

No, you are not limited at all.

Well, I may limit myself to a few general points. I am sure that you have already considered some issues, which other members will have raised, to do with the pressure of time and the speed with which legislation is pushed through, in terms of both the speaking time that is available at stage 3—an issue that Donald Gorrie has raised on several occasions—and the delay between the different stages.

As a new MSP, in the first few months after the 2003 election, I found myself thrown in at the deep end with the Antisocial Behaviour etc (Scotland) Bill. Cathie Craigie will remember that, as she was on the same committee as me. I understood the bill process to a degree only by the time I came out of the other end of it. I am hopeful that I will be returned in the next parliamentary session, and that I will not have to go through that learning curve again. For newly elected members, however, it is important that their contributions to committees' scrutiny take place at a reasonable speed that allows them to come to terms with the process, as well as the content of the legislation.

Regarding human rights scrutiny of legislation, the Scottish Parliament can pass legislation only if it is compliant with human rights law. If it is not human rights compliant, it can be struck down by the courts. That places on us a responsibility to ensure that we get it right first time, rather than allow situations to develop where a court may need to take action.

Mistakes can be made, as nearly happened with the Family Law (Scotland) Bill recently. Regardless of what members feel are the rights and wrongs of the argument on the waiting period for divorce, amendments were agreed to that affected the separation time only for marital divorce. The same did not apply to the separation time for civil partnership. If the bill had been passed in that form, it would not have been compliant with human rights legislation. At stage 3, the Executive moved amendments to return the separation periods to their original levels. It also had to lodge amendments to increase the civil partnership dissolution time, so that if the first argument was lost there was a second chance to ensure that the bill was compliant with human rights legislation. That is the type of detail that could be missed. I am glad that the Executive picked up on it on that occasion, but rattling through legislation at such a fast rate means that there is a risk that such issues might be missed.

Members receive next to no independent advice on human rights law compliance. The Presiding Officer's office ticks a box to tell us that he regards a piece of legislation as compliant with human rights law. MSPs are not, however, given the grey areas surrounding the issues, let alone the arguments for one side or the other. Although the Executive's policy memorandum brings human rights issues to our attention, the detailed arguments as to why one issue outweighs another are not available.

MSPs are ultimately responsible for the standing of the Parliament. We will take significant blame if legislation is passed and then struck down by the courts. It is not unreasonable to argue that that could happen if we receive no independent advice on human rights issues surrounding legislation. The timescales matter in their own right when dotting the i's and crossing the t's. Human rights compliance has two aspects—timescales and independent advice.

Two helpful points have been made. If you were in charge of the mechanisms, would you slow down the stage 2 process in committee to ensure that more time was devoted to considering the issues?

There is a case for slowing the process down. There is also a case for ensuring that legislative texts are clearer and in plain language. When members lodge an amendment, it would be reasonable to require them also to lodge a plain English translation of the amendment. That would help MSPs and people in the many non-governmental organisations, businesses and so on who track our work and take an interest in what we are doing. I am thinking in particular of amendments to complex bills that, in turn, seek to amend many other pieces of legislation. Before an amendment is discussed, its intention should be made clear.

I think—

I am sorry, but do we not get help from the chamber desk when we are lodging an amendment or submitting anything else that is to be reproduced in written form for use in the Parliament?

Yes, but—

I want to open up the debate a little. We have heard much about the points that Patrick Harvie raised on the rushed nature of the stage 3 process. I think that the points he raises are universally agreed.

I return to the issue of legislation being human rights compliant. The Justice 1 Committee is looking at the matter as part of its scrutiny of the Scottish Commissioner for Human Rights Bill. It is trying to find evidence of the Parliament passing legislation that is not human rights compliant. As yet, the only example we have been given is the Family Law (Scotland) Bill, which was not human rights compliant on introduction because it did not take account of the Civil Partnership Bill that was introduced while the Family Law (Scotland) Bill was being drafted. As soon as members started to draft stage 2 amendments, they became aware of the human rights implications that resulted from omissions in the bill.

My recollection is that there has been only one human rights finding against the Executive, which resulted from the political decision not to end slopping out. The evidence seems to show that instead of the Executive inadvertently breaching human rights, the opposite is the case.

Perhaps we are concentrating on the wrong line of argument. There is value in what you said about rushing the stage 3 process, Patrick, but the road that you suggest could lead to a dead end. Similarly, if we required a plain English translation of each amendment, we might also need to require a plain English translation of each bill.

Excuse me, convener, but surely that is what the explanatory notes are for.

While I was the convener of the Subordinate Legislation Committee, we quite often spotted wee human rights loopholes in subordinate legislation. The situation may be different nowadays; we are a few years down the road and the Executive is more used to constructing legislation. Patrick Harvie raised a particular instance. Certain of our colleagues are more clued up; they are better at running the human rights Geiger counter over the legislation that comes in front of us.

I raised the issue because of the concern that nothing should be allowed to happen that could result in the Parliament passing legislation that is not human rights compliant and so could be struck down. For example, if someone brought a human rights case against the dispersal order provisions in the Antisocial Behaviour etc (Scotland) Act 2004, it would be up to the court to determine whether the provisions were human rights compliant—it might find that they were. Ultimately, the fact that the determination is one for the court should not deter the Parliament from trying to ensure that it has put in place the most robust procedures. We want to avoid challenges.

The issue has consistently been raised over the past couple of years by the external members of the cross-party group on human rights, of which I am the convener. Many of the organisations, campaign groups and lawyers to whom we have spoken have raised concerns that the Parliament is not scrutinising legislation with enough enthusiasm with regard to human rights compliance. It has been suggested that that is either because it is convenient to avoid the arguments, or because MSPs do not have access to impartial advice. We have access to the Executive position on the bills it introduces, and to the Presiding Officer's yes or no response to the question on compliance—the answer has always been yes. Of course, the Presiding Officer gives the position on the bill as it is introduced, and not as it is shaped during stages 2 and 3.

You suggest that an independent adviser should be appointed. Who would that independent adviser advise: the committee as it takes a bill through its various stages, or the Parliament as a whole?

When a committee determined that a piece of legislation that it had to deal with raised human rights issues, it could appoint an external adviser. Another way would be to have a parliamentary unit that is dedicated to giving all MSPs independent legal opinion on legislation. I am not saying that I know which is the appropriate solution; all I am doing is flagging up the issue and expressing concern on behalf of the members of the cross-party group that MSPs do not have sufficient information about the human rights issues in the legislation that they pass. There have been some near misses, and people are concerned that we should avoid being hit at some point in the future.

But that is MSPs' responsibility.

Is it not fair to say that, during the past six years, we have relied on the Presiding Officer's office for that, and we have accepted the decision of the Presiding Officer that a bill is compliant—

That is an expression of a view on the bill as it is introduced, but not as it is shaped during stage 2.

I am on the Justice 1 Committee, which considered the Family Law (Scotland) Bill, and we had Professor Kenneth Norrie, who is clued-up on human rights matters. Even after the bill was introduced, he advised of several situations where he believed that the bill was not compliant with, or could contravene, human rights legislation. That was discussed in the committee, and there were exchanges between the committee and the Executive. The Executive took a different view from that of Professor Norrie, and a decision was reached on the balance that was talked about earlier.

Part of the argument about having a commissioner is whether human rights should be considered by a small body of people who are experts on human rights, or whether they should be everyone's responsibility and not considered as a separate issue. I understand that those are two different ways of looking at the issue; I tend to go with the second one.

I understand what you are saying and where you are coming from, but we could be running up a cul-de-sac on this issue. I am not sure how we could do what you think we should be doing. I do not know whether there is an answer.

Perhaps what is important is the output, and whether the system is failing at the moment. I do not say that the system cannot be improved—obviously it can—but I am not sure that it is failing to the extent that we have to take the action you suggest, or that what you recommend would do anything to help with the issue of parliamentary time. From what we have heard so far, we are fairly unanimous that we have heard about lots of things that could take up more parliamentary time, but none that would free up the space for what you are asking.

Is it not a matter of judgment, convener? After someone has been here for a wee while, they can work out the legislation that might be tricky, that might break new ground, that could be open to challenge in the courts, and all the rest of it. That is the point at which they might decide that they need an expert opinion or opinions—the Executive has expert opinion too, and it might be different from yours. It is a matter of judgment. We pass some legislation about which we do not need all that much tutoring.

The responsibility lies with MSPs. Just as we should consider new legislation and amendments from the perspective of equality, we should consider them from the perspective of human rights. We should be aware of their resource implications and of their impact on other legislation. That is just part of our job. That is what we get paid all this money for.

Patrick Harvie made the point that amendments should be accompanied by a plain language interpretation. At present, they are not. Bills have explanatory notes—they might not be written entirely in plain language, but that is the intention. Patrick Harvie's idea is an interesting proposition. He suggests that any amendment of substance, whether it is lodged by the Government or by a member, should have attached to it a wee spiel that would be circulated along with the amendment.

It need only be a couple of paragraphs. In many cases, the change that an amendment would make to a bill can be explained easily. Often, an idea starts out as a couple of paragraphs of text, which are then translated into an amendment; I do not see why we should lose that explanatory text. I have taken part in a lot of stage 2 discussions and a great deal of time is taken simply to ensure that everyone has the same understanding of what an amendment means. We have to reach that point before we can debate the amendment and decide whether we agree with it.

In my experience, the debate on an amendment often focuses on what the amendment means or how it would be interpreted. Patrick Harvie suggests that, before the debate, there should be a definitive written explanation of how the amendment would affect the bill, but that is probably pointless. At worst, it could be misleading and might misdirect the debate. For example, how often has the Executive dismissed an Opposition amendment on the grounds that it would not have its intended effect?

I cannot speak for Patrick Harvie, but as I understand it he thinks that the member who lodges an amendment should attach to it a wee spiel that gives his or her view on the amendment's objective. Whether the amendment would achieve that objective is, as Alex Johnstone says, a matter of opinion. A lot of the lobbying groups that send in amendments for consideration by MSPs do exactly what Patrick Harvie suggests and explain what they are driving at. I would have thought that it would be helpful to know the thinking on the amendment, because what it is about is not always clear from the wording.

Many of those organisations are pretty good at giving explanations of what they mean. Some members take up the suggested amendments almost verbatim and slap them into the Business Bulletin.

At stage 2, members explain what their amendments are about. That is what stage 2 is for. I do not accept that we can agree the meaning of an amendment in advance. The Family Law (Scotland) Bill is a classic example. Some people argued that changing the period for uncontested no-fault divorce to 12 months would strengthen marriage, but others said that it would weaken marriage. In that example, it was clear that the amendment would reduce the period to 12 months, but we could not agree about its meaning.

I am not proposing that someone should write a paragraph of justification saying, for example, "My amendment will strengthen marriage." My suggestion is that they should produce a statement that says, "My amendment changes the separation time from X to Y in the case of marital divorce or civil partnership dissolution." Members know how it feels to wade through hundreds of detailed amendments. I experience joy when I see an amendment that is accompanied by a well-written briefing that simply says, "This amendment does this, that and the other to the bill. It changes this time period or that threshold—"

In the view of the author.

That is the author's opinion, rather than fact.

Opinions can be debated. If I lodge an amendment to delete a subsection, I should be able to explain in simple terms—before getting into arguments about right or wrong—what the subsection would do if it remained in the bill and what the effect of deleting it would be.

You mean that you should be able to explain your intent.

Yes.

And only your intent.

That is exactly what the Executive does when it introduces bills.

You would have to make your case in front of the committee. You could submit your uncontested case, showing your intention, on a piece of paper. However, when the amendment came to be debated, it would not matter what language it was written in, you would still have to defend it if people did not agree with your intention or with your vision of how it would pan out. I appreciate what Patrick Harvie is saying; he is making a point about making arguments in plain English. I hate to tell him this, but legislation has never been about plain English; it has been about precise, nit-picking English. Live with it.

Do you argue that stage 2 debates should be more spaced out or that there should be more time before stage 3 for constructing amendments? Should we have a longer debate at stage 3?

There is a case for giving more time to all stages, including stage 1. The committee of which I have been a member since 2003 has been pretty legislation heavy. We have gone from one bill to another. On none of those bills did we have enough time at stage 1 to consider all aspects properly. A bill will contain issues in which members are particularly interested, and some issues will be subject to controversy, media attention and widespread debate. However, other aspects do not get that level of attention, and there have been areas in all the bills on which I have worked that were not given enough thought at stage 1.

The timescales for stage 2 have often involved fitting in extra committee meetings as and when we can to ensure that we get through the amendments that have been lodged. Increasing the gap between stage 2 and stage 3 would allow us to identify and iron out the details that need to be picked up at stage 3.

In your experience, do committees accept two types of timetable at the suggestion of the Executive? Should committees ask for more time more often?

It would be helpful if committees made clear the time that they think a piece of legislation deserves. It is almost like haggling over the price—there might be some flexibility. Ultimately, however, a committee knows how much work is involved and how much it has on its plate above and beyond the scrutiny of a particular bill. Some committees would, on occasion, like to pursue their own inquiries on priorities that they have identified, rather than merely respond to Executive legislation all the time.

Committees can do that at the moment; they can decide their own priorities and what inquiries they want to hold. Apart from a number of exceptional cases, I have not found much difficulty with the timetabling of stage 1. When the Justice 1 Committee looked at the Emergency Workers (Scotland) Bill, we saw two sheets of A4 and thought to ourselves, "This should take a fortnight", but it actually took a heck of a time. However, I do not know how that could have been timetabled when we first saw the bill. Only when we got into the discussion did we think, "Jeez—this is a lot bigger than we thought." If committees do not have the guts to tell the bureau that they need more time—that would be the ultimate result—and they are rushing their work to the extent that they are not being diligent, they should insist on more time.

Does that not back up Patrick Harvie's suggestion that more time should be given to stage 1 proceedings?

When a bill is published, allocated to a committee and timetabled, it might not be apparent that additional time will be needed. Even the committee that was to consider the bill might have agreed that the bill would not take a heck of a lot of time but found when it got into the bill that more time was needed. At that stage, the remedy is that the committee must look for more time. How do we foresee the unforeseen? With the best will in the world, we will never get that right all the time.

We will not get it right all the time. Once again, judgment is involved.

Of course.

If the debate at stage 1 is longer and better, so that people understand the issues—

I am sorry—are we talking about the stage 1 debate in the chamber or about stage 1 in committee?

I am talking about the stage 1 debate.

I was talking about stage 1 scrutiny.

Aye—I thought that you were.

Sorry.

I agree that we should know by the stage 1 debate how much time should be allocated and whether more time is needed. However, Patrick Harvie was talking about scrutiny.

I was talking about the time that is allowed for a committee's inquiry at stage 1—time for getting into the nuts and bolts of the issues behind a bill and producing a report to Parliament on whether the general principles should be agreed to.

As Bruce McFee says, if a timetable has been set but the committee decides that not enough time has been allocated, the committee should have the confidence to say no and to ask Parliament for more time. I started by observing that, in my two and a half years as a member of a committee that has been very focused on legislation, I have found in general that timescales are not long enough to allow attention to be given to all parts of a bill. That concerns the general way in which the workload is habitually dealt with in Parliament, in my limited experience.

My experience is limited, too. When the committee of which you are a member did not have enough time, were approaches made for additional time at stage 1?

Not that I remember.

Perhaps that is part of the problem. You are the first person to have talked about stage 1—that is largely because a remedy exists for that problem, although we could kick over how good that remedy is.

This is the first time that the committee has heard of a problem at stage 1 and I am surprised that the issue has been raised. Often, committees start scrutiny of a bill before it is published. They get out there and inform themselves of the issues. The committee of which Patrick Harvie and I are members went out and about around the country to discuss antisocial behaviour months before the Antisocial Behaviour etc (Scotland) Bill was introduced, so committee members were clued up.

Procedures Committee members sit round the table and hear that some people want more time for stage 1 scrutiny; that other people want more time for longer speeches in stage 1 debates; that people want a longer time between stage 1 and stage 2; and that we should have even longer at stage 3. Where would we find the extra time in the parliamentary week to meet all those requests?

In Jack McConnell's phrase, we could "do less, better".

The number of hours for which we sit could be increased, or we could use the time more cautiously and slow down the legislative process a little. I would be comfortable with increasing the number of hours for which we sit, but perhaps that option is less favoured by other members—I do not know.

The answer is to have meetings on Mondays.

That is a logical conclusion.

I would be comfortable with that.

But you mentioned doing less, better.

I am sorry—that was a slightly tongue-in-cheek remark.

The committee is conducting a serious inquiry.

I understand that.

What would you do less of?

I mentioned the Antisocial Behaviour etc (Scotland) Bill.

You can choose what you want to choose, but the majority of the Executive legislation that the committees have dealt with has been introduced because the proposals in that legislation are the priority not only of the Executive, but of the people of Scotland. The coalition parties have brought together their manifestos.

In all seriousness, there is only one real answer that I can give. I repeat: I feel that it would be acceptable for the Parliament to spend more time sitting.

Do you mean that there should be more sitting days or more working hours in the sitting days?

I do not want to suggest that the Parliament's hours should become the same as those in some antique Westminster model so that people with families cannot take part in our proceedings.

You assume that those people live within commuting distance of Edinburgh. A person who lives in Orkney might want to be away for only two days and therefore might want to be in the Parliament on Wednesdays and Thursdays until half past 10 at night, but a person who lives in Edinburgh might think that working from 9 o'clock until 5 o'clock for five days is family friendly. Such hours would not be family friendly to a person who lives 200 miles away. We have had to balance the arguments. We have heard the arguments about the Parliament being family friendly, but whether it is family friendly depends on where a person bides.

It does.

The phrase "family-friendly Parliament" is referred to in English as an oxymoron.

That is true.

I understood your argument about stage 1 of the legislative process to be that, although there is a lot of consultation about issues that are seen to be major, committees often do not pay enough attention to parts of bills that are perhaps not overtly controversial, and that we could land ourselves with a few banana skins as a result of neglecting less picturesque parts of bills. Is that what you were aiming at?

Yes. Even some aspects of the Antisocial Behaviour etc (Scotland) Bill that were controversial were simply overshadowed by other contentious issues. We did not spend very much time questioning witnesses on issues to do with lower-level vandalism, graffiti, noise and so on, or on electronic tagging and parenting orders. I am not suggesting that the committee did not work hard—it did. We questioned every witness closely, but some issues simply overshadowed other issues. If time had been allocated to considering the content of the bill on a more strictly proportional basis, we would not have gone into the detail that we needed to go into on those issues that we questioned witnesses about.

Do people not get the evidence that they ask for? That is certainly my experience. Witnesses come along to say their piece on subjects and members end up going down particular routes with their questions, but we get the evidence that we ask for. Sometimes it is a question of knowing which witnesses to ask for.

My point is that we need enough time to ask for all the evidence that we want.

With all due respect, ensuring that there is enough time is part of the responsibility of the committee's convener, who will be assisted and guided by the clerks. Whether all the necessary information has been extracted from witnesses must be worked out. I do not have a clue about which committee or convener is being discussed, so there is nothing personal in what I am saying—I am talking about structural and operational matters. However, a certain responsibility also falls on the committee members. If they feel that the convener has missed something, they should wait until the witnesses have departed and say, "Excuse me, convener, you made a mess of that. Could you not do better next time?"

I call Cathie Craigie.

Thank you, former deputy convener of the Communities Committee.

I am a member of the Communities Committee—indeed, three members who are sitting round the table took part in the consideration of the Antisocial Behaviour etc (Scotland) Bill—and I do not recall any committee members complaining that we did not have enough time to question witnesses. I do not know what the convener thinks, but I do not accept the picture that Patrick Harvie has painted of our scrutiny of the bill. There were differences of opinion about various aspects of the bill, and committee members and the press ran with their own agendas on it. Obviously, there was a bit of cherry picking and several aspects received much more publicity than they might have deserved.

I do not have any questions for Patrick Harvie, but I feel that I must provide some balance and say that I was satisfied that the committee prepared itself very well for considering that bill. Regardless of what committee they might be on, members must prepare themselves before they take on the responsibility for scrutinising legislation. Members of the Communities Committee have done so very capably.

But that raises another question. You said that members were very good at scrutinising the bill. Hmm—

I am sorry, Margo, but—

I agreed with you until you said that the committee was very good at scrutinising the bill. I do not know whether it was or not.

You were not at the table at the time.

That is right.

However—the committee has previously discussed the general issue—members of the Communities Committee prepared themselves not only by reading up on the subject matter, but by going round different parts of Scotland. Indeed, Patrick Harvie and I visited some weird and wonderful places at least four to six months before the bill was introduced. Taking such an approach means that when a bill is eventually introduced, members have an idea of what will face them when they read the explanatory notes.

The only thing that I can bring to this discussion is that, when I became an MSP, I honestly found the experience rather bizarre and surreal. When the bill was introduced and we all had a chance to see what was in it, I was shocked to find that, although we had time to go into detail on some of the issues that I had concerns about—I realise that I was prioritising, but then all members were prioritising the issues that they felt needed to be addressed—we were leaving other issues relatively untouched. I think that that was a weakness in the process.

Patrick Harvie made a good point in his introductory remarks when he spoke about his feelings on becoming an MSP and almost immediately becoming involved in the consideration of legislation. Perhaps there should be training for new members and refresher courses for existing members, although I realise that that is probably a matter for the next session of Parliament. I do not know whether such training already exists, but—

I am sorry, convener, but there is a difference between induction and training. Induction courses are a good idea, but given that the first thing that new members do is sign up for the money—by which I mean all the money, not apprentice wages—perhaps they should do some forward planning before they get here.

Fair point.

Induction sounds okay, but I think that training sounds a bit robotic. It suggests that MSPs will be told, "This is how you'll think on that point."

Some things would be very handy for new members and could take away a lot of the mystique. When members have half an hour, I will explain how Willie Ross gave me an induction into reading a bill—it was the most terrifying experience of my political life.

I am aware that we have not yet heard Margo MacDonald's ideas, but I have one final point to make.

I take Patrick Harvie's experience at face value. However, perhaps we all want further debate on issues that we find controversial, but not necessarily on proposals that we are happy to agree with. Do we all share that failing?

Perhaps we have that failing sometimes, but on the occasion to which I referred, we had significant debate on the issues that I was particularly concerned about and wanted to prioritise.

You were doing your job.

My concern at the end of the process was that substantial areas of the bill had barely been looked at.

If you are really concerned that an area has not been touched on, you can raise the issue so that it is on the record. At least notice would then have been given that we might have to return to the issue; you cannot do everything yourself.

That point was made, but if more time had been available for questioning witnesses—rather than three or four witness panels appearing on the same morning—there would have been enough time to examine all parts of the bill rather than the discussion being foreclosed.

In certain respects, this comes halfway towards what I was going to say when I said that the answer is Monday. Cathie Craigie asked where we could find more time. We knew—Cathie Craigie knew better than the rest of us, because she had seen the situation on the ground—that there would be considerable press interest in that bill, along with misinterpretation of intention and all the rest of it. Therefore, it might have been sensible to have had flexibility and it might be sensible to build flexibility into our proceedings as a matter of course, so that such a bill can be subjected to more scrutiny. A committee should not be put under pressure to meet a date. There is no blueprint; it is a question of judgment.

Even allowing for our individual bias and different interests, there are bills—such as the one that dealt with clause 2 or section 28—that we know will cause a stushie. We knew that antisocial behaviour orders and the idea of dispersing people just for being somewhere would cause a stushie. I do not know whether legislation is needed on the length of jail sentences for example, but if it is we know that that will cause a stushie.

We should give ourselves time and have sufficient flexibility in our procedures. We could use Mondays. We always read that members do things in their constituencies on Mondays. However, I live in the Lothians so I do constituency work every day. Alasdair Morrison represents a constituency that is—I was going to say that it is on the edge of darkness, but of course I do not mean that. He represents a far-away constituency, so he cannot do constituency work in the same way even as folk who live on the other side of the central belt.

Monday should be seen as a day that can be utilised in all sorts of ways, depending on what the priority is.

You both seem to be saying that the time pressure is on committees rather than the Parliament. As well as expanding the overall time, there is the issue of the balance between committee time and Parliament time.

I am not saying that the time pressure is always on committees. My point is that there can be pressure on committees and that we can usually anticipate when certain committees will be under extra pressure because they are handling certain bills and therefore need extra time. On other occasions, there could be pressure on time in the Parliament to ensure that everyone gets their tuppenceworth said and on the record.

I go along with that. At no time over the past couple of years have I noticed members crying out for more issues to be squeezed into the parliamentary debating time.

Really?

Hear me out. On a fair number of occasions, people have said that we are holding debates that we have held every year since 1999 and have questioned whether those debates have been necessary. I feel that enough time has been available to do what we need to do in the chamber, as well as some of the stuff that it is just nice to do. From my perspective, the pressure is on committees.

Margo—were you suggesting that committees that are under pressure could use Mondays, and that the whole Parliament could also do so if it felt under pressure?

Yes. I would treat Monday as a flexible day that could be used for whatever needs to be done.

In my experience, committees use Mondays in that way anyway.

Do you mean when the committees go out and about?

Yes. We have used Mondays and Tuesday mornings for that.

Committees will usually sit down and thump away at work.

Committees have been under pressure. Perhaps we could ask the clerks to do some work on when committees have used Mondays and Tuesdays. As I said, my experience is that we have used that time.

The people on railway bill committees often—

Yes. Private bill committees take evidence on Mondays—that is when their official meetings have been. I suppose that the debate is about the extent to which we can push that practice further. I am happy with the current balance, but there might be some more debate about that.

I would like to take the discussion forward a wee bit. Richard Baker is right. Committees can meet on Mondays if they want to, but many committee members are reluctant to do so, which is a matter for those committee members. Apart from that, as far as the use of time in the chamber is concerned, the only matter that has been raised is the sometimes farcical stage 3 debates, when amendments are voted on without debate. Should we be concerned about that?

That will sometimes happen, anyway.

Some changes have been introduced that have helped to ameliorate the situation, but not to resolve it entirely. I think that most of us would agree that the Procedures Committee came up with a reasonable solution, which solved some of the problems but perhaps did not go all the way. On whether there are any other issues in respect of the use of chamber time, I wonder what we would squeeze in and what we would squeeze out. The view has been expressed that there are a lot of motherhood and apple pie debates in which the Executive secures a debate on a motion that says, for instance, "Aren't we doing terribly well on education?" and the Opposition lodges an amendment that says, "No, you're no."

That sort of debate can be very good for the soul. We call it blue-sky thinking on our optimistic, positive side of the chamber. I would always make room in the parliamentary timetable for such debates.

There is something to be said for that, but we should note that such debates are not being squeezed out too much at the moment. There are a number of such debates on the Parliament's agenda.

We should not just look at the width; we should look at the quality. If we hold a motherhood and apple pie sort of debate, as Mr McFee would have it—or a blue-sky thinking sort of debate, as I would have it—

I was just making a proposition; I wanted to gauge your reaction.

When we have those debates, I would not like Parliament to d'Hondt the speaking times, because we are not talking about the sort of debate that makes Executive policy, but about debates in which we examine all the angles without the pressure of having to vote on the Executive's programme. I would like to depend much more on the Presiding Officers to decide who brings matters to the table during such debates. Scott Barrie would be called to speak on issues to do with children's safety and so on, for example.

Speaking time is allocated differently in such debates. We had a debate last week that started to come to life and could have gone on for much longer to good effect. It was educational, and people in the gallery saw that we were addressing the issues that they talk about outside Parliament. That is good for Parliament and it is a good way of connecting with the people who send us here. For them to mean something, debates must be not just relevant, but more natural. We should not just apply d'Hondt to them and have three and a half SNP members speak because four Labour members will speak, which is nonsense in those debates.

Would you take that view if it meant that Bruce McFee and I got more time than you and Patrick Harvie got?

Yes—if the debate was about coos and things.

Oh no—I have been pigeon-holed.

You know a lot more about those things than I do. In such a debate, I would sit and listen to what you had to say. Believe it or not, I often go to debates just to sit and listen, although I might ask a question because I genuinely want an answer.

Are you saying that, in an ideal world, you would like everybody to have their say?

Yes, although I accept that we compromise and make the best fist in an unequal world.

Do we make the best fist of it? Could we do better?

We could. I understand why party discipline comes into it when the Executive's programme is under debate and it is a matter of seeing through the Executive's programme, but when we are having an exploratory and wide-ranging debate that is educational and informative and which is supposed to advance our thinking on a topic, I would apply different rules for the amount of time that members are allocated. That is what happens at Westminster—it is quite good at some things. It has been exercising power for 1,000 years, so it knows a thing or two. If members want to speak in a debate at Westminster, they send a wee note to the speaker, who will have a good idea of their constituency or specialist interests; those members are more likely to be called. Front-bench members will be called first and a privy councillor may well be called, but members are called far up the speaking order if they have a known track record in the subject under debate. That is a good way to handle that sort of debate.

Donald Gorrie is considering that answer. Are you talking about debates that do not necessarily have a division at the end of them?

Yes.

Are they just subject debates?

Yes.

Are they almost like member's business debates?

Yes.

They are not necessarily debates in which everyone agrees.

Members do not have to agree with each other.

Such agreement is one of the expectations of a members' business debate. Your idea is similar to members' business debates, but there could be an exchange of views in the kind of debate that you are talking about.

Yes.

An increasing number of debates on topics are not accompanied by motions or votes, and that seems to be working quite well.

Those debates work a bit better, but the d'Hondt principle sometimes strangles them. Two or three people in a party or grouping might have something to offer—the fact that they sit in the same grouping does not mean that they have exactly the same views. In a debate without votes, we could hear from them all.

Conversely, there may be times when we are scrambling around looking for members to speak because there are 3.5 slots to fill.

That happens all the time, does it not? It never happens to the independents, though.

Good point. That is why you have all the time.

Do you have any views on members' business debates or how members could have their ideas debated better than is the case at the moment?

I might like the whips and party managers and I might even think that they do a good job, but by leaving the matter in their gift, we take power away from the back benches and we narrow the range of debate. I would prefer the names-in-a-hat system for members' business debates.

Another problem is that motions need to be emasculated so that they do not say anything significant in order that they can get on the members' business debate schedule.

I obviously regret that there is no vote at the end of members' business debates. However, although they should not upset the apple cart, it might shed a little light in dark corners if we could debate controversial issues.

On the unwritten rule that members' debates should be about issues on which there is a fair consensus—

It is more than unwritten—look in the new rules.

I was being nice about it. Is there a case for reviewing that rule?

If I agree, folk will ask whether all we do with our time is review things.

Is there a case for chopping away that requirement?

We should put the members' names and what they want to debate into the hat. The knowledge that we have only qualified privilege might cause some concentration. As we are in a political arena, members would be aware of the political impact of what they wanted to debate. The system would self-regulate.

Are you concerned that, if the Presiding Officer paid no attention to party numbers in deciding who should speak, he might think that it was not relevant to choose any member from a party, in which case that party would not get a shot at all?

No. The Presiding Officer will have a list of names. If he or she does not recognise members as being particularly expert or gifted in the subject at hand, the other members who are on the list and who are expert or gifted will be called. There would be no great difficulty in that. Not every debate would be the same, but I am happy for some debates to be like that.

If the committee feels that the names-in-the-hat system is too much of a gamble, we could consider how the debates had worked out when there was four weeks or so to go at the end of every term. If all the members' debates had been for Tory or Lib-Dem members, a bit of balancing could be done. We could say that that was not fair and arbitrarily hand out debates to the other parties. Party members know better than I do how the current system works.

We could argue that that is, in effect, what happens with questions.

I would make that a names-in-the-hat system, too.

It is.

I am thinking of First Minister's question time, which has become a ritual that nobody bothers about. I bother about it, because it disconnects Parliament even further from the people who sent us here. It is extremely boring and it does not go anywhere. Once again, I would go for a system that is much more akin to the Westminster system, which works better.

But the Westminster system has rituals, too.

Of course it has, but it is shedding some of them.

I mean with the party leaders.

If the purpose of First Minister's question time is to call him to account, it is reasonable that he should be called to account by the leaders of the other groups or parties. However, the way in which the party leaders come into the exchange is highly artificial. At the start, the leader of one of the Opposition parties gets the chance to ask four questions, rat-tat-tat-tat, the last of which is always a variation of, "Why doesn't the First Minister go and jump off a cliff?" to which the First Minister replies, "Because I'm not going to, so there"—at much greater length, of course. That is meant to be a criticism not of the party leaders, but of the convention that we have established.

Is there a case for lengthening question time? Part of the reason why question time—perhaps we should call it answer time instead—is boring is to do with some of the themed questions in the afternoon. I know that the matter has been considered before and that the committee said that it did not want to do so again for a century.

Cathie Craigie is dying in front of our eyes.

That is because she will get the job.

Is there a case for having a longer First Minister's question time, making it a bit more spontaneous than the stuff that is in the Business Bulletin and getting the leaders of the Opposition to split up their questions?

We need to decide what First Minister's question time is. Is it an opportunity for the Executive to make statements or an opportunity for the Opposition to play politics?

It should be an opportunity for MSPs to hold the Executive to account.

Ah—that is altogether different.

Not only Opposition MSPs should have that chance.

No. I do not think that members want to hear me rehearse my argument. I would change the format of questions, especially questions to the First Minister, because—like it or lump it—that is the event that receives attention from the press. Many people in Scotland think that is all that Parliament is about.

Sure.

I do not think that the present version of FMQs conveys a terrific impression of the Parliament.

Are there any other issues that you would like to put to us?

The notice that is given of business is inadequate. Priorities change and we must have the ability to change with them.

The committee paper states that

"The inquiry does not start with an assumption that more Chamber time is needed",

but I think that sometimes that is the case and I would like us to be more flexible in our use of chamber time.

When would you add the additional chamber time?

On Monday and after 5 o'clock. I think that the business of going home in time for tea is not an awfully grown-up way to run a Parliament. All that an Opposition has available to it is time, so if one does as we do and says that proceedings must stop at 5 o'clock every night, one diminishes the quality of the opposition to the Executive. The Executive knows that all it needs to do is get to 5 o'clock and it is home free. By the time everyone comes back the next day, the press will have interpreted what happened and the Executive's spin doctors will have been sent out to play. If an issue is not resolved to everyone's satisfaction, we must have the facility to argue later than we do. I realise that that proposal will make me extremely unpopular.

Are you suggesting that we should add an extra 60 or 90 minutes at the end of a Parliament sitting day?

Probably. I would like Parliament to be able to do something like that.

We have done that occasionally for stage 3 consideration of a bill—perhaps we could do it more often.

That is right. And we should not be afraid of doing it. We seem to have decided that a Parliament that is family friendly is one that packs up at 5 o'clock. I do not agree with that.

I am interested in what you say because if we want more time for debates it is logical that we must find it. If it were decided that we should make it possible for proceedings to continue, would you want the speaking time of members still to be strictly controlled? If a member is speaking in the middle of a debate and his or her time is suddenly cut to three minutes, as often happens—

Tell me about it—three minutes for an opus magnum.

If you have a lot to say and are a wee bit expert on a subject, your chances of saying it all in three minutes are slim.

I do not know how anyone could filibuster in our chamber, although that is a perfectly legitimate tactic in any debate.

Would you keep the rule on speaking times?

We should be able to vary speaking times. That is possible at the moment: standing orders can be suspended or a motion can be moved to allow more time.

I am not sure about that. If the Presiding Officer said, "You've got four minutes, McFee," and I felt that I needed six, I do not think I could suspend standing orders to get them.

I think you could if you really wanted to, although I would not want anyone to have to challenge a ruling from the Presiding Officer in that way.

That does not happen, so I wonder how we can allow speakers more time.

Standing orders do not animadvert on the length of speeches.

No—length of speeches is decided by the Presiding Officer. However, we have conventions. I do not want to bore the committee, but early in the life of the Parliament I asked about precedents and was told that we did not really have any.

I want to ask about Margo's priorities. A minute ago, we were talking about how debates might be extended—albeit not by much—to create additional time for speakers. What should the priorities be for that additional time? I will offer two alternatives. Would you prefer the time that is allocated to individual speakers to be extended, or would you prefer the time for individual speakers to remain at four or six minutes and give everybody who wants to speak the opportunity to do so?

Before a debate takes place, it will be known what sort of debate it will be—whether it will be long or short, and whether it will be important or just mechanical. However, we seem to consider all debates in exactly the same way. Some debates are more important than others and, in the more important debates, I want individual speakers to be given more time so that there can be an exchange of views. If someone is making a good speech and raising good points, I do not want them to have to decline an intervention by saying, "I'm sorry, I can't, because I don't have time. I've only got four minutes." If a debate is important enough, speakers should be able to exchange views.

I am not sure whether more time should be allowed for a reply from the Executive or whomever, but more members should be allowed to take part in debates and they should have more time if the debate merits it.

The Scottish Parliament will hold debates on nuclear power. How many MSPs would say, if they were being absolutely honest, that they had firm opinions about our future energy requirements? I do not think that many of us have fixed opinions, but we want to discuss the issue and to learn. In the course of a debate, we should have enough elbow room to ask questions and receive answers.

Are there other issues that you wish to raise?

If I were to raise all the issues that I want to raise, I think the committee would want a holiday. The important issues are flexibility in the use of Mondays; a revamp of question time; and, depending on the type of debate, a different way of deciding how many members should be allowed to speak, how long they should be allowed to speak for, and whether the d'Hondt principle should be applied.

Trust and professionalism come in because those are the sorts of things that can be decided at the Parliamentary Bureau. However, individual members should also take an interest in such matters and should be willing to submit to the Parliamentary Bureau notes making a plea for such-and-such a debate. I cannot remember that happening, however. The Parliamentary Bureau is supposed to operate in the interests of the whole Parliament, not just the members of the Parliamentary Bureau. That is one area in which we are remiss, although my fellow members will hate me for saying it, in case it causes longer meetings and more work.

The same thing goes for the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body. How many of us know what the SPCB gets up to until it has got up to it?

I will direct a question to Margo Macdonald, but Patrick Harvie might also want to comment. Would it be fair to say that you are telling us that you want there to be more parliamentary time, if necessary?

If it is necessary, there should be more time. One of the suggested questions in the committee's papers asks whether the sitting pattern should be affected by the different demands that are made at various points in the four-year session. My answer to that is that it should. Our procedures should mirror the various phases that we go through.

It would be better to have more parliamentary time than to rush legislation through. However, that is only one of the options. Slowing things down is the other. I am comfortable with both.

Thank you for your interesting and constructive suggestions. We will see what other colleagues tell us in a fortnight's time. If you have any arrières-pensées, you may put them on paper—in English—and send them in.

Can I ask why Karen Gillon did not come into the room until our question-and-answer session was over?

She's no daft.

I was representing my constituents at a conference on corporate culpable homicide.

Are you winning that one?

I hope so.