Back-bench Speeches
Item 2 concerns a letter from Alex Neil, which enclosed his correspondence with the Presiding Officer. Members will be aware that, from time to time, Alex Neil and other members have raised concerns about back-bench speaking times in the chamber.
The committee will recall that we discussed the issue before the summer recess and agreed that we would survey members to get their attitudes to potential changes. We wanted to get opinions on debate times and the organisation of the working week. The preparation of the questionnaire is at an advanced stage. The assistant clerk and I exchanged e-mails at the beginning of the week—we are fine-tuning some of the questions—and we hope to be able to make quick progress.
Members may suggest any course of action that they wish, but I propose simply to advise Alex Neil of the discussion that we had before the summer, note his letter and advise him that a questionnaire will soon be issued. Before we push any of the issues that have arisen, we should have an idea of what our parliamentary colleagues think. We should find out whether there is widespread unhappiness with the current situation, which there may or may not be.
I do not disagree with anything that you have said, convener, and I support your proposed course of action. However, Alex Neil's correspondence with the Presiding Officer highlighted the problem of back benchers, with eight getting the opportunity to speak in a particular debate but four not getting that opportunity.
There is another point about which I have spoken to Alex Neil. It is not a party point, but a general point. The way in which business is organised—using lists that have been made up by spokespeople—means that the same back benchers are at the tail end of every debate.
Some of those issues are really for the Presiding Officers, who will accept the point about looking after members who may always come at the tail end. The Presiding Officers have the power, which they sometimes use, to vary things in order to be fair to everyone.
I think that the Presiding Officers are complicit in the way in which back benchers do not get the opportunity to speak. I say that because I think that the Presiding Officers like a nice tidy list to operate from. I do not think that there is anything dubious about that, but, right from the start, Sir David Steel said that he liked having a list so that he could manage the time. I understand that, but we have to consider other factors as well and not use the convenience of the list to make things difficult for back benchers.
We like days when the number of speakers coincides with the amount of time available so that everyone gets called. That makes things much easier.
I do not want to have the full debate now, because we will come back to the issue, but I want to put on record the fact that I have a lot of sympathy with the points that Alex Neil has made, both on the number of back benchers who are called and on the amount of time that they are given. Given how I voted in a recent debate, those points were illuminated for me by the frustration that I felt when I was not given the chance to speak. I was grateful to the Deputy Presiding Officer for reading out and acknowledging those members who were still waiting to be called. I found that helpful and, for the record, I whole-heartedly commend the practice. It does not make things any better but it certainly reduces the feelings of frustration on the back benches.
That is not generally done, because we do not want a whole lot of members pressing their request-to-speak button on every subject, thinking that, although they will not get called, they will still be able to say that they had tried to speak. However, in the recent health debate, we knew that every local member would have wanted to speak and that they would have a legitimate interest in demonstrating to constituents that they had attempted to speak. We knew that we could not call everyone, so it seemed fair to put on record the names of those who were not fortunate enough to catch the Presiding Officer's eye.
Like other members, I am happy to proceed on the basis that you outlined, convener. I, too, echo the view that we should be willing to consider the issue quite widely—I am sorry that I missed the meeting at which members discussed it. It is important that we consider in the round all the different aspects of debate procedure that impact on one another.
I seek two assurances. First, will our work—the questionnaire and our wider inquiry—address some of those wider questions, including those that are within the Presiding Officer's domain? I would have thought that we could comment on those questions, despite not having the power to implement changes ourselves. Secondly, I would like confirmation that committee members will have an opportunity to pass comment on the questionnaire before it is issued.
When I think that the questionnaire covers everything that was raised in the committee's previous discussion, we will circulate it to members, at which time everyone can have a cut at it.
Two issues arise. First, we will never be able to accommodate all the back benchers' aspirations. We have all been disappointed on a number of occasions. I was in the same situation as Ken Macintosh; I, too, would have liked to speak in the debate to which he referred. It will always be the case that some MSPs will not be accommodated in a debate—the survey will have to be clear that accommodating all MSPs is not possible.
Secondly, I have always been concerned about the time that is allocated to party spokespersons for opening and closing debates. That issue affects all parties. If we could shorten the length of those speeches—even by only one minute—we could create an opportunity for an extra back-bench speaker. I know that the logistics are not as simple as that, but we could consider the amount of time that is allocated for opening and closing speeches, because the length of those speeches is a serious issue. All members want ministers to take interventions during closing speeches, which creates problems with time. We also want other speakers to take interventions, which adds to the time that is taken up.
We should be honest with one another. We can conduct a survey, but are we being genuine when we say that we will be able to accommodate everyone who wants to speak in a debate? We can aim for a maximum number, but members are in for a surprise if they think that they will be accommodated simply because they press their request-to-speak buttons.
That is fair point. We should send the questionnaire with a clear warning about expectations. There is no remedy that will allow all members to speak for an unlimited length of time.
I apologise for being late.
I am sympathetic to back benchers' concerns that they do not get an opportunity to speak, particularly in controversial debates. That is a key point—there are many debates in which we do not so much persuade members to speak as let it be known that it would be helpful if willing volunteers were to come forward. The question is one of judging which debates require a greater allocation of time. I have to consider that question as a member of the Parliamentary Bureau. Frequently, I have been able to secure longer debates on what I believe are controversial issues. That applies both to debates and to ministerial statements, in which we know that a large number of members are interested and about which they wish to ask questions.
Paul Martin made a good point when he referred to the length of time that front-bench speakers are given during longer debates. The problem may not be as severe as we perceive it to be. Alex Neil, who has also contacted me, has a good record of being able to contribute to debates, but many others find themselves at the tail end of debates, as Gil Paterson said. It is helpful that the Presiding Officer notices and brings to the attention of the parties the fact that some members are frequently not called to speak. In the SNP, there is no major lobbying or banging on doors by members who want to change the procedure. People believe that they are getting a fair crack. This is a front bench versus back bench issue about the allocation of time.
The debate on the School Meals (Scotland) Bill is a good example of the problem, because that was a controversial issue and many members wanted to speak in the debate. The bureau should ensure that enough time is allocated to debates on controversial issues, so that members are able to speak. That means that a judgment call must be made in advance of a debate about whether an issue is controversial—sometimes we do not know whether an issue is controversial. As the Presiding Officer knows, sometimes debates run for less time than has been allocated. The Procedures Committee has had to address what happens when there are too few speakers for a debate and what we should do about decision time in such circumstances. That is the flip side of the problem and it is difficult to manage.
We may be able to make some changes, including changes to the length of time for front benchers' speeches in the longer debates, in order to leave more time for back benchers' speeches. I encourage all parties to monitor which members are not being called to speak and to trawl all members to find out who wants to speak and who does not. We have conducted studies that show that, usually, only one member is not called during a debate. However, that might be due to the fact that members are not putting themselves forward because they think that they might not get in. There are issues that the Procedures Committee can manage, but there are also issues that are more to do with internal party management. The parties should ensure that all their members have an opportunity to speak.
We all recognise that there are aspects of the issue that are matters for the parties, for the Parliamentary Bureau or the Presiding Officers. The point is well made.
It is quite apt that we are speaking about this today. At Westminster, there will be a 12-hour debate in which members will get more than four minutes in which to speak. They will be able to make their points well on an important world issue. Until we get the opportunity to do the same in the Scottish Parliament, we will always be scrambling about.
There are also issues about the total length of time that is available. Do not believe that the situation at Westminster is ideal. Although members sit there all day, a succession of privy councillors can jump the queue in front of them.
I know that it is not ideal.
I do not want to prolong the debate, as we will return to the issue. However, it worries me that we can become quite technocratic in discussing how we make speeches fit the window of time that is available. I find it encouraging that, in our wider discussion around the inquiry, we have taken a step back and thought laterally about the bigger objectives regarding debates in the chamber. I hope that we will not restrict our thinking to how we can fit things into the current model. We must also think about how the quality of the chamber experience can be enhanced both for members and for observers. The issue of allowing more flexibility in the length of debates and speeches must be considered. The stilted approach that we currently take is satisfying neither front-bench members nor back-bench members and it often makes the experience not very rewarding for members of the public who are listening to debates.
There is an argument for having more flexibility and I hope that we are capable of thinking outside the box on that. Anything that we do to canvass our colleagues on the issue should not just steer them into thinking within the norms; we are, after all, still only in the first session of the Parliament. We must guard against building in precedents and practices at an early stage by accident rather than by design. Now is a good time to take stock and I hope that we will think more about the qualitative issues. I am sure that we will.
Okay. We will send Alex Neil a response, including the Official Report of this discussion and the previous one. Committee members will receive copies of the questionnaire and the text that will be issued with it, so you will all have an opportunity to ask that additional questions be put or that questions be put to address all your concerns. We will try to accommodate all committee members' requests. Are we agreed on that course of action?
Members indicated agreement.