Procedures Committee, 25 Jun 2002

Meeting date: Tuesday, June 25, 2002

Official Report 184KB pdf

---

Parliamentary Business

We move on to consideration of the Donald Gorrie paper. Over to you, Donald.

The response to the questionnaire was disappointing in terms of quantity. In the interest of trying to focus on things, we could do something about the matter more rapidly. There was not a vote on this as such, but there seemed to be strong support for loosening the timetables for stages 2 and 3 of bill consideration. A long list of favourable quotations relates to that idea, and I do not think that any were anti. I think that almost all the things suggested are good ideas, but the failure of the Parliament adequately to consider bills is the key, most important, issue.

I suggested giving time for interest groups or part-political groups to respond to Executive amendments and giving everyone time to seek advice on and response to their amendments. I suggested allowing two or three days between the time when amendments are lodged and the time when the wording of amendments has to be finalised. That would allow for negotiation and clarification with experts. It would allow the Executive to formulate its usual "Oh, it's a nice idea, but it's not well drafted." If the Executive was genuine and honest in that opinion, drafting improvements could be suggested.

I suggest that we pursue something like the timetable that I have outlined to allow more consultation by members of the people who advise them and who know about the subject in question, with more discussion. If Gil Paterson lodges an amendment that I think is three quarters, but not entirely, right, I could tell him about some changes that my adviser suggests, and if he agrees, he could adjust his amendment accordingly to mobilise support for it. There could be similar arrangements with Executive amendments. That is my main topic, and although I would be happy to pursue one or two of the other issues, I would like to start with that.

These questions have, to a large extent, been caught up in our consultative steering group work. In that inquiry, many witnesses have given evidence essentially along those lines, saying that the stage 2 procedure in particular is far too severely time constrained. Since we started discussing the matter, we have had the additional perspective that Susan Deacon has very effectively given us—it is not just the Parliament and outside people who are stretched; the Executive also struggles to come up with amendments and to react to and interpret non-Executive members' amendments by the prescribed deadlines. I would certainly like to pursue that matter, but in the context of our CSG recommendations. The subject is germane to that exercise.

In the clerks' briefing on these matters, I see that the recommendation in response to questions 10 and 11 is that we pick up these issues when we come to produce our interim, and then final, CSG reports. I agree with you in principle, Donald, but I do not know that I want to initiate a parallel piece of work on those issues at this stage.

I accept that, but I feel that the idea may attract great support, and that we could change standing orders accordingly. That would have an effect on the bills that we are considering between now and the election. The CSG matter would probably have no practical effect on the conduct of the Parliament until after the election. I could, however, agree to pursue such proposals as part of a more far-reaching reform.

It is eminently sensible to change what we do between stage 2 and stage 3. I have not heard anybody argue that we should keep things as they are. The only barrier to stopping us changing the procedure is probably inertia, as well as the fact that we have our CSG inquiry to complete. I agree with Donald Gorrie that proposals stemming from that inquiry might take longer to come to fruition.

I would like some clarification from Donald Gorrie. There seem to be two main points about stage 2 and stage 3. The first is the aspect on which you have just concentrated: allowing more flexibility after lodging an amendment to go back and forward to get it right. The second is the time between the end of stage 2 and the end of stage 3. I notice that your suggested amendments to the standing orders would extend the period between stage 2 and stage 3 from two weeks to four weeks. Will you explain to me how we get from two weeks to four weeks?

In my view, the suggestion is practical. We face a number of bills between now and March next year. Our committee's job is to help the Parliament's procedures. The proposal is a good piece of work. Unless there are any major objections, it would be a practical proposal to make. The Executive may express concern that it has tried to timetable bills between now and April. We might have to address how implementing Donald Gorrie's proposal would affect what the Executive is trying to do between now and April next year.

That is a real concern. The Executive's programme, plus the programme of outstanding members' bills, has been thought about and discussed in other places, including the Parliamentary Bureau and the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body. I suspect that the time scale for achieving the legislative programme that has been announced so far is quite tight and that to propose to extend the time scales at this stage in a four-year parliamentary session would threaten the delivery of the legislative programme. The proposal to change the standing orders is liable to be resisted at this stage.

I support the general principle of taking longer to do the same amount of work, which is not necessarily doing less better, but doing the same amount better. However, it would be preferable to suggest the changes at the beginning of a four-year parliamentary session, because the only point at which we can lose a bill is at the end of the four years. We will find extreme resistance to the proposal. That resistance would largely be contingent on where we are in the four-year schedule. If we want to make the changes, it is important to separate agreement to them in principle from the point at which they would come into effect, because the timetable is a legitimate concern for the Executive.

It seems to me that Donald Gorrie's suggestion of more flexibility on altering amendments after they have been lodged would add only a couple of days on to the process. I am not quite sure how we suddenly go from two weeks to four weeks between stage 2 and stage 3 under the proposals.

There are two separate issues. I felt that interest groups need some time to consider a bill as amended at stage 2 and produce proposals. There should be some time for discussion and negotiation. That is particularly the case with bills such as the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Bill, which is the most recent bill with which I was involved. Quite a number of stage 2 amendments were withdrawn on the understanding or guarantee that the Executive would produce a stage 3 amendment. Sometimes the Executive needs longer to produce such amendments, and then members need time to consider them.

I accept the convener's argument that the proposals would delay the legislative programme a bit. If that is a big issue, we could drop them. However, with all due respect, the timetabling suggestions for lodging amendments delay nothing at all. They merely mean that people have to get their act together earlier for each meeting. Unless I have missed something, the proposals would not mean that stage 2 of any bill would finish later than it would otherwise finish.

I am not sure about that. A lot of the evidence that we took suggested that people outside the Parliament felt that they needed more time between each committee meeting to assimilate what had happened, consider amendments, produce further amendments and brief for those amendments. We would not improve stage 2 unless we took longer at it and broke up the stage 2 committee meetings with other committee meetings. That would enable us to avoid the tremendously frantic process, which Donald Gorrie has described as being like an Olympic cycle race—everyone goes round at a leisurely pace until the last two laps, when things suddenly become frantic. That was an apt analogy.

If we are to change the standing orders for the procedure at stage 2, we need time to consult about specific proposals. As we are in the last week before the recess, we shall not realistically be able to consult anyone until September. If we are to do a proper job of analysing the responses, we have no option but to assume that we cannot put the changes in place before the end of the year.

We will need to move from a general recommendation that the procedures at stage 2 and stage 3 be stretched a little to accommodate people's requirements to the point where we can present the specific proposals for change. Those changes will need to be well founded and will need to have been carefully considered both by the Parliament and by outside interests such as the voluntary sector. Before the proposals can be accepted, everyone must be happy with them and believe them to be reasonable. We will lose the argument if we jump at things and approach the issue in an overly hasty and under-considered way.

I accept the convener's argument. It is more important that we get something done right than that we get it done quickly. My suggestion, which was also suggested by Fiona Hyslop, was that we could push a change through if there was general agreement. However, if the Executive had kittens and tried to block any changes, that would spoil things. Perhaps in the response to our inquiry into the CSG principles we could get an improvement on which everyone is agreed.

I suggest that we approach the Executive outwith the CSG process and test its view on the proposals. Susan Deacon can give us a strong perspective as a former minister, but we have not gone into the Executive's view particularly deeply. It may be appropriate to test the issue formally with the Executive. We might find that our work on the matter can be shared in the same way as our work on parliamentary questions was. I am happy to take that aspect out of the CSG approach and put it into a faster stream.

I am happy with that suggestion. However, the advantage of making the changes as part of our CSG inquiry is that they would not then become a matter simply for members of the Parliament and the Executive. The issue that Donald Gorrie has addressed is more important than that. I think that there is consensus for a change, but we need to ensure that members of the public and lobby groups are also involved. There is therefore an argument that we should make any such change through our CSG inquiry rather than approaching the matter as a single item. However, I am relaxed about which approach we use.

The approach does not matter, as both approaches are, in a sense, really one and the same thing. Why do we not just get on and work out the practical details of what we want to do? We must first work out whether we can get agreement with the Executive. After that, the issue will be how to present the changes. However, the most important thing is to start engaging with the relevant people.

Okay. We are all agreed on that. Donald, do you want to raise the other issues that you mention in your paper?

I will not push all the issues. The first proposal is that there should be an Executive business manager's question time. The interesting response that I got from the officials was that the business motion can already be challenged. They said that members do not need to be able to question the business managers because they can vote against the business motion. However, as Gil Paterson is reported as having said in one of our reports from about 18 months ago, it would—somewhat like the Trojan war—be overkill to challenge the business motion.

The situation is ridiculous. I am probably the only person present to have twice moved against a business motion. The only effect of doing so was that all the Government supporters got paged that they had to come into the chamber to vote, so I was not that popular. I would have thought that, without necessarily making any change to the rules, we could establish the convention that people could ask Patricia Ferguson about the business motion when she moves it. For example, members could have the opportunity to say that they understood that there was to be a debate on education and ask when that would take place. Members could get some indication of how subjects were to be covered or they could make any relevant point. Perhaps we could pursue that issue. As someone said in the responses, the failure to have questions merely leads to spurious points of order and it would be more orderly to allow questions to be asked just before the vote on the business motion.

I have some sympathy with the point when it is expressed in that way. We are told that we can send questions to the minister, but that is clearly pointless, as we will get an answer within a fortnight to a question that needs to be answered immediately. The fact that other bureau motions can be debated without time limit is immaterial, because no one will ever debate the designation of a lead committee.

That is not the case.

We have not had many debates on such matters.

My point was that there is a time limit of about four minutes when a member speaks against business motions.

In any case, most of the arguments are around the business programme. We would not be able to sell a Westminster-style Leader of the House question session. I have read the Hansard of that and it appears to me to be a miniature Prime Minister's question time. The Leader of the House has to be briefed on all the topics of the day and people use the session as an opportunity to make statements on issues that they would not otherwise be able to raise. I do not think that anyone would be willing to go down that road.

However, the question that Donald Gorrie has raised, where a member wants to know what has happened to a debate on a certain subject, is another matter. Of course, members may ask that question of their business manager in private, but I realise that that option is not open to those members who do not have a business manager and that a member might quite legitimately want to get a point on the public record.

I do not know whether there is a mechanism that would allow a prior question to be ventilated and answered by the mover of the business motion. It would be helpful if you could put flesh on the idea, Donald, and suggest a specific proposal that would allow legitimate points to be picked up without opening up the possibility that we would blow half an hour of plenary time on any question that might arise. I would be happy to support a proposal that struck a balance between what is reasonable in terms of plenary time and members' ability to get information.

The concerns that have been expressed stem from the desire to open up the Parliamentary Bureau to allow all members to scrutinise the process. I do not want to second-guess the recommendations that will be in our CSG report, but it is pertinent that many people from whom we took evidence said that the bureau was like a secret society. Perhaps the answer to Donald Gorrie's point is not so much a question-and-answer session as having the bureau publish an agenda and a fuller minute that explained why it decided to take one route instead of another. It would be overkill to move against a business motion simply because one does not understand why the decision was made and does not know why another issue has been dropped or sidelined.

I have sympathy with what, I assume, is the idea behind Donald Gorrie's suggestion of making the Parliamentary Bureau more transparent and exercising greater parliamentary control over its agenda. That issue arose in the CSG inquiry. We should perhaps beef up the procedures, not just for our sake as parliamentarians but for the public's sake. I am not sure that a question time would do. I would not say that a question time would be a waste of parliamentary time, but it would use parliamentary time to talk about something that directly affects parliamentarians only and it would take time away from discussing real issues. We need to find a way of improving procedures, but I am not sure that a question time is the solution.

Another point, which was raised by the bureau, is that is it difficult for one person, such as the Minister for Parliamentary Business, to speak on behalf of the bureau, because the bureau is a cross-party body. The issue is between the front benchers and the back benchers, rather than between the Executive and the back benchers.

I am a member of the bureau and am keen to smash the myths and legends that the bureau is some kind of conspiracy. The problem is lack of information, which means that members think that the bureau is something that it is not. On what Ken Macintosh said, I do not think that that point was raised by the bureau; it was raised by the Executive in the shape of the Minister for Parliamentary Business. Clearly, the bureau is a cross-party body. There is a problem in that—

The point was raised in a letter from Sir David Steel.

In that case, we are simply talking about a letter from Sir David Steel and not about a paper that has been discussed at the bureau.

I think that the issue might have been discussed in the bureau before you were a member of it.

In that case, the letter must have been drafted more than a year ago, which is some time ago. The matter has not been discussed in the bureau since I have been a member.

There is a problem in that if, as an Opposition member of the bureau, I disagree with anything or question why the Executive is not having a promised education debate, for example, the issue is discussed only within the bureau. I have probably moved against more business motions than Donald Gorrie has. If something is controversial, I take the opportunity to raise it at 5 minutes to 5 in the chamber. I will often be found speaking, but not necessarily voting, against a business motion. One can make political points and raise one's concerns. It is important to share those concerns with members in the chamber, but whether the issue is pressed to a vote is another question.

There is merit in having questions on business motions, but I do not think that a question time would help. However, if a member wanted to query a business motion that was published in that day's business bulletin, they could tell Sir David that they wanted to put a question, lodge the question the same day, put the question at 5 minutes to 5 in the chamber and have the business manager respond to it. We could have something along those lines.

To be fair to the business managers, they might not necessarily know, for example, why the education minister has not argued for an education debate, so they might have to find out and come back. That is reasonable. The problem is that only one person can speak on a business motion and that their time, I understand, is limited to four minutes. That is a problem if, for example, Donald Gorrie and I want to address different issues. The ability to lodge questions in advance on the day that the business bulletin is published would perhaps be a sensible way of progressing the issue.

Bureau decisions arise not from some great conspiracy, but from practical considerations, as the approach that I have suggested would clarify. For example, the Executive could say that it did not want a debate on an issue because the issue was out for consultation, but that there would be a parliamentary debate on the issue in the following month.

Would you expect the questions to be directed solely to the Executive in respect of Executive business, or would you also expect to submit to questioning about why the Scottish National Party had picked subjects X and Y rather than A and B?

That would make the point that Parliament is about Parliament; it is about all the parties and not just about the Executive. Most of the questions would be to the Executive, because it has 90 per cent of the business, but I think that your assumption is fair. That is why I think that a question lodged about business should be directed to Sir David, as he chairs the bureau. He could then work out who should answer the question.

I just thought that it would be useful to put that on the record as well.

Yes.

Okay. How do we take the matter forward? The CSG report is unlikely to make a specific recommendation on the issue, so perhaps we should ask the bureau to discuss it again.

I have been thinking along the same lines as Fiona Hyslop. It would be reasonable to give some notice of questions. I think that we receive business motions in the morning and votes are at lunch time, so the argument about losing debating time is not relevant. Lunch time might be lost, which may be more important—the time for cross-party groups, for example, might be reduced. I could produce a suggested form of words. I presume that we will not discuss the matter until September, anyway.

No. However, you can produce a suggested form of words to encapsulate what we have discussed and we can circulate it. The clerks can draft a letter so that the bureau can discuss the issue when it meets after the recess.

The suggestion could be contained in guidance or in a protocol—it does not need to be in standing orders.

I think that the fact that a member can move against a motion but not ask a question is a rigidity. Members might simply have a point to make that a question would illuminate. The Executive might be happy to be free from the pressure that is involved when a member moves against a motion, drags other members over but does not vote against the motion. The suggestion might recommend itself all round as a better way of going about business.

I want to raise another issue. I am interested in what colleagues think about the length of speeches. There seemed to be a general view that four minutes is too short. I suggested six minutes, or seven minutes if there were interventions. That would mean that fewer members would be able to speak, unless debates were longer. Within a month, members could make perhaps five longer speeches instead of six or seven shorter speeches. Four minutes is a serious constriction and members are uncertain as to whether they will get injury time for interventions. That tends to lead them not to take interventions, which, it could be argued, diminishes the quality of debate. What do members think about that issue?

The matter is as simple as horses for courses. In some debates, two minutes are enough, whereas in others 10 minutes are needed. We have not really squared that circle yet. It is difficult to determine whether 10-minute, two-minute or three-minute speeches are best in debates.

There is too much control in the parties. It is said that the Presiding Officer can bring in a member who they think should speak in a debate, but the problem is that the spokespeople control the queues for each debate. Therefore, the usual suspects participate in big debates, which would be an opportunity for longer speeches. The back benchers are at the back end and are always squeezed. Ministers and spokespeople who lead and wind up always get their time, but members in the middle are always squeezed. We need to overcome that.

The system whereby parties submit lists might be convenient for the Presiding Officer in running debates, but there is an overriding requirement that members should be able to make contributions. The best way of ensuring that that happens might be to restrict the number of members in every debate where the party list prevails and to leave an automatic space. Whether that time is taken up is a different matter. In the big debates, it would certainly be taken up. For some reason, the debates that no one really cares about seem to be longer than the most important debates.

That is a good point.

I do not know how to overcome those problems. I would like a paper on the issues to be produced. Rigidity is created by the Presiding Officer's need to know exactly how much time will be used so that the debates finish on time and by the fact that the party business managers determine who should speak.

The Presiding Officer needs to know how long a debate will take. They want the afternoon's business to run to 5 o'clock—to decision time. They want to know roughly how long speeches will last because they want to know whom to call. When members nominate themselves to speak—either individually or through the whips—it is assumed that they want to contribute. Where possible, the Presiding Officer will seek to include all members who have indicated a desire to speak. If a debate is heavily oversubscribed, that means putting pressure on speakers right from the beginning.

Last week, in the stage 1 debate on the School Meals (Scotland) Bill, I called eight members to speak in the open session. Five members who pressed their request-to-speak buttons—not all of whom had given prior notice that they wished to speak—were not called. It was difficult to decide whom to call and whom not to call. I had to ask myself what was fair and who had a track record on the issue that was being debated. The Presiding Officer might not know that and may have to work out the best approach to take.

Injury time to take account of interventions was mentioned. Members are given that time only if it is available. If the debate is so tight that the Presiding Officer is trying to keep speeches to four minutes, members will be pressed to wind up at that point. If there is plenty of time for a debate, the Presiding Officer may be happy for members to speak for six or seven minutes. The approach varies significantly.

I am speaking purely from my experience—I have not discussed the issue in detail with my colleagues recently. In my view, if someone has bid to speak the day before a debate—or earlier in the week—and has prepared a speech, they should be allowed to contribute. If they are not allowed to contribute, what is their reward for attending a debate for two hours and listening to everyone else speak?

I understand that there are tensions between front benchers and back benchers. Front benchers tend to overrun. If a minister is speaking or a significant point is being made, the Presiding Officer may want to make space for that. However, if a minister is given a good slice of time, their counterparts on the Opposition front benches may expect similar flexibility. The Presiding Officer is always checking which back benchers are down to speak but have not turned up and which members have pressed their request-to-speak buttons on the day, despite not having bid earlier to speak. One has to balance those factors.

It is clear that there is not enough time for some debates, if allowing everyone to speak and giving them adequate speaking time are important criteria. I have spoken in two recent debates—to sus out the situation, more than anything else. Last week, I had a three-minute speaking slot at the end of a debate. That is garbage. Members cannot say anything in three minutes in a significant debate. A couple of weeks ago, I had four minutes to speak in a debate on sustainability. I spoke for five but stopped when the Presiding Officer gave me the look. I still had a great deal to say. I did not regard five minutes as a worthwhile speaking allocation in the debate in question.

Three to four minutes is a reasonable allocation in members' business debates, especially when a large number of members want to speak. However, I sympathise with members who have difficulty making a significant point on a weighty political subject in the time allowed.

If we want to address that problem, we must examine the issue of parliamentary time more globally. We must consider how much time we spend in plenary, how much time we allocate to specific debates, what we shoehorn into an hour and a half on a Thursday afternoon—which I find very frustrating—and what we do about questions. There is pressure for different forms of questioning. I suspect that we might be looking at reshaping the entire week and reforming our attitude to the length and frequency of debates. There is a lot more to the matter than simply speaking time, although that is an important part of the overall jigsaw.

I recognise some of my comments in the responses. I was the person who said that four minutes can be both too long and too short. Gil Paterson made the important point that sometimes it is the least contentious debates that get more time. Part of what happens in the Parliamentary Bureau is argument with the Executive about whether a debate needs longer or whether three hours is really necessary.

It might be controversial to say that the number of front-bench speeches at the beginning and at the end of debates is an issue. We have guidance on how many speakers there might be in a debate of a certain length, say an hour and a half or an hour and three quarters, and the length of time that each party can take to open and to close. In my opinion, more difficulties have been caused since the Liberal Democrats, who are members of the Executive, insisted on having separate front-bench opening and closing speeches.

One solution would be to revert to what happened at the start of the session, when the Executive had front-bench opening and closing speeches but the Liberal Democrats did not. That would release the time that is needed to allow longer speeches in between. I am not convinced that Donald Gorrie will be sold on that idea, but it is the number and length of front-bench speeches that causes some difficulty. My proposal is practical and has political merit. The Executive parties should not get two bites at the cherry. The Parliament must hold the Executive to account and it is not properly able to do so if the Executive is allowed to have two front-bench speeches, which is the same number as the Opposition parties have. That is not necessarily the right democratic arrangement for the Parliament.

I do not fancy your chances of changing that.

Perhaps we should get rid of Conservative speeches, because the SNP speeches will cover the contributions of the Conservatives.

Absolutely not.

Half of our discussion concerns the difficulty between the Parliament and the Executive and half of it concerns the difficulty between the front benches and the back benches. It is difficult to get the right balance on the two issues.

In general, if one is given a time slot, one ends up expanding what one has to say to fill the time slot. There is a discipline to be exercised. I have every sympathy with what Gil Paterson said about the tail-enders being squeezed. Nobody gets squeezed more than Labour tail-enders—they get the least chance to speak.

Although one might occasionally think that too much time has been allocated to a debate, that does not frustrate me as much as not getting the chance to make a contribution in the debates about which I am worked up. Getting only three or four minutes in such debates is also frustrating. I would be sympathetic with Donald Gorrie's proposal of making five minutes the norm. Four minutes is okay for some debates, but it is nowhere near long enough for a decent contribution on a weighty subject.

Even though back benchers do not get the chance to speak that often, I would be happy to speak less frequently if I could speak for slightly longer. We probably need to do further work on such issues. The problem is complicated by our relationship with the front-bench members of our parties.

We could address Fiona Hyslop's point and take up Kenneth Macintosh's suggestion that we need to do further study by examining the system that is used in the European Parliament. My understanding is that, under that system, a party group is allocated 30 minutes, say, in which 10 people can speak for three minutes or one person can speak for 30 minutes. Such a system would be a way round the problem, as it would ensure that each party got a fair amount of time. The back benchers would fight with the spokespeople about individual allocations of time. That arrangement would be worth while.

There is an argument in official circles that everyone is reasonably content because few people who indicate that they want to speak are not called. However, if I am not on our party list, I do not indicate that I want to speak, as to do so is a total waste of time.

That has a harmful effect on attendance, which is not that great. In the House of Commons, more members attend in the hope of catching the Speaker's eye. The debates are dominated by committee members, but other members who have an interest in the subject are called to speak. For example, I have a great interest in education and, although I am not an education spokesperson, I still attend education debates and would like to be called to speak. Members should not be complacent and think that everything is okay, because there are many uncalled speakers, even when there are not many members in the chamber.

One delightful response to the survey claims:

"If Donald had his way we would be in the Chamber dawn til dusk every day listening to him."

That deserves publicity.

Did Mrs Gorrie write that?

You were doing all right until then.

I hope that the official reporters are catching all this.

I do not know whether Ken Macintosh's compromise suggestion that speeches could be limited to five minutes rather than four minutes could be instituted without a big song and dance. A lot of members drift over their four minutes anyway. Another point is that if members are allowed four minutes, they will speak for four minutes even if they have only two minutes' worth of material—they pad it out. There is a malign influence the other way.

I agree that we need a study of the length, number and nature of debates. In the meantime, we could make a small improvement—or at least try out the suggestion to see whether it is an improvement—and allow slightly longer for speeches.

If members are given five minutes, even if they speak for five minutes and do not drift on for six minutes, there is still the issue of whether the Presiding Officer will be able to call as many members to speak without that affecting the length of the debate. Short speeches are a way of allocating less time for a debate than the members who want to speak would like to have. That is an issue for the Parliamentary Bureau, which should either reduce the time that is allocated to certain debates, by guessing better which debates are likely to be in demand, or create more plenary time.

I do not think that significant changes to the current system will be achieved within a day and a half of plenary meetings. If we want a realistic resolution of all the tensions that exist—between Opposition debates and Executive time, front-bench speeches and back-bench speeches, and the four-minute rule and the calls for a six or seven-minute rule—we must move to Monday committee meetings and Wednesday morning plenary meetings. We cannot conjure up more time unless more time is allocated overall. That is a big issue for the whole Parliament.

A lot of people are beginning to think about our performance over the past three years and about the lessons that we should lay down for the people who will arrive after the next election. Perhaps this is an issue on which all members should reflect—in their party groups, in committees and as parliamentarians across the board, without artificial separation into little groups. I do not know what mechanism could be used, but I think that a day and a half of meetings of the Parliament each week is not enough.

What are we going to do?

Maybe we should conduct another survey. It is up to members. We did not receive a very good response to the last survey that we carried out. Perhaps we asked too many questions and they were not focused enough on a specific issue. Perhaps it was too early—it was undertaken in the middle of 2000. We are two years further on now and members have had longer to reflect on what the matter means to them and how they would like things to change.

Perhaps, rather than conducting a questionnaire, we could ask somebody to produce an academic paper on the subject, involving structured interviews with members and a statistical analysis of who speaks in the chamber and the balance between the parties and between front and back benchers.

I seem to remember that we made a change early on that improved matters. Although I have my doubts about the lists, they give us a greater understanding of what is happening. The frustration that we experienced when we put our names forward and were not called time and again was far worse than it is now. If our name is not on the list we know that we will not be called and so we do not bother preparing.

Perhaps the clerk or an academic could produce a study, following structured interviews with back benchers and front benchers, to find out whether there is a view in Parliament that there should be a change. It remains a case of trying to fit a quart into a pint pot. An interview might be better than putting out a random questionnaire, the response to which might be half-hearted. We could use the study to analyse the tensions and pressures in the system.

Do you suggest that we try to sample a representative number of members?

Yes. We should interview them. Although a self-nominating approach is helpful, there are more useful approaches. Interviews with back-bench and front-bench members of each party alongside a statistical analysis of who speaks in the chamber would allow us to form an idea of the fairness of the system.

What would you look for in your statistical analysis of who speaks? I assume that it would not examine individuals, but would consider the ratio of front-bench to back-bench speakers.

There are two different, but parallel, tensions. There is the tension between the Executive and the rest of Parliament and a tension between the front bench and the back bench. The difficulties that we have been talking about relate to the tension between the back bench and the front bench.

We do not want to change the answers, but the problem with the last survey was the volume of responses and the fact that it dates from some time ago. Perhaps we could do a quick telephone study—our staff could make phone calls to get quick responses from people on whether they want a change in the way speeches are managed, how long speeches should be and what are the key issues. People get tired of filling out bits of paper, which tend to disappear in the different offices.

We could also speak to the different parties. What we cannot quantify is how many people put themselves forward for the party list to speak and do not get called. We could find that out quite easily if we speak to each party and find out the ratio of people who are not included on the list. Then we would understand the extent of the problem. That might be a quick and easy way to get the information that we need.

We could probably do that by going round the table.

We should interrogate further and look into the difficulties. We might be happy to ask the questions, but we might not like the answers and the possible solutions. The convener has raised the fact that he knows what the responses from the various party groups will be if we suggest that we go to a Monday committee slot. That is the difficulty that we face. We all want an increase in the time allocated to individual members, but we will not like the possible solution, which would be to increase the plenary time and move the Tuesday committee slot to a Monday afternoon, which is currently allocated for constituency work.

My problem with sending out a questionnaire is that we know that members are quite happy to go down the route of the five-minute slot for speeches. The question we would have to ask is whether we want to move from a Tuesday to a Monday slot for committees. We could go ahead with the questionnaire, but we know what the answers will be. We should focus on the proposed solutions, if there are any. As we know from Westminster and the European Parliament, all Parliaments face difficulties, because every elected member wants to speak for more than four minutes—if they are allocated 10 minutes, they want to speak for 15 minutes.

However we look at it, the issue is not about asking questions, because we already know the answers. I am not saying that we have a monopoly on answers, because it would be helpful to receive further information, but the main point is whether we want to move the committee slot from Tuesday to Monday. The paper should revolve around that point, not the principle, which we are all signed up to.

That is absolutely right. The clerks could write a brief issues paper that addresses all the points and the options that exist, and we could put together a reasonably well-constructed questionnaire. Whether the clerks feel able or resourced to do structured interviews as part of that is another matter. We should discuss further the mechanics before we commit anybody to doing the work, but it might be reasonable to draw up a paper and a draft questionnaire during the recess for consideration after it.

Paul Martin is right that, ultimately, the question is for members and is about priorities. What do members want? Do they want not to be here on Mondays or do they want longer to speak? They can have one if they do not prioritise the other.

Does anyone have anything useful to add, or have we exhausted the discussion?

There is some merit in Ken Macintosh's suggestion. Rather than the clerks doing the work, we should bring somebody in. This is an important part of our business and, so that we get it right, someone should interview a cross-section of members, rather than our asking them to tick boxes. The committee does not rush out to spend money often.

No, but we do not have the opportunity to ask for money for somebody to do the work until after the recess. It might be useful for the clerks to have a stab at it in the interim, and we can address the issue again in September.

Yes, fine.

It might be helpful to have a paper to go with the questions, which focuses members on the central choice on the allocation of time. I suspect that people will be more willing to express a view than they were two years ago, because we are all a bit clearer about how we are performing and how the institution is performing.

Is it possible to consider accepting questionnaire responses by e-mail? It is much easier to read an e-mail and tick a box. We already use that system to sign up to motions.

We would do both. Is that okay, Donald?

Yes. I am happy to let the other issues go at the moment, but colleagues may have other points.

I am sorry, convener, but my point was not that members should send their completed questionnaires by e-mail. I know that this is quite high tech, but I meant that we should have a tick box for each question, the response to which could be sent by e-mail. I was not saying that the questionnaire should be sent by e-mail.

Do you mean so that members could respond onscreen?

Yes. Members could respond to an e-mail questionnaire onscreen, then the answers could be sent straight away.