Procedures Committee, 26 Jun 2001

Meeting date: Tuesday, June 26, 2001

Official Report 185KB pdf

---

Decision Time (Timing)

We move quickly to item 5, which is consideration of a brief report on variations to the timing of decision time, which was written in response to a letter from the Presiding Officer. The report is straightforward. Its conclusion in paragraph 10 contains the recommendation that the Presiding Officers be given discretion to vary the timing of decision time.

If we agree to that in principle, it is recommended that we seek reassurance about how members—like Mr McAveety who is not present at the moment and who was not present for a while earlier—who are away from the chamber for part of a series of important votes know when decisions are to be taken early. My initial view is that, if we are assured that members will not be caught short, we could let the Presiding Officers have the greater flexibility that they seek. That said, I am happy to hear the views of colleagues.

I am happy with the recommendation. We ought to ask the Parliamentary Bureau, or perhaps more appropriately the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body, to provide some physical manifestation of a division, such as a division bell. In the present circumstances, in particular during stage 3 debates when we have two-minute and 30-second warnings, there is a need for an audible and/or visible warning of divisions. That would be worth while, because we are going to work in our present situation for about two years.

I am content to give the Presiding Officer and his deputies the discretion to vary decision time by 15 minutes either way. However, I also suggest that we bring ourselves into line with other Parliaments in which there is an audible and/or visible warning that divisions are about to take place.

I welcome Frank McAveety back to the committee with the news that he has missed an important vote.

Again? Do not tell the business managers.

For how long does Brian Adam think a division bell should ring?

I do not know.

Long enough for me to hear it.

Brian Adam's point is fair but, if a division bell was to ring for 10 minutes, that would undermine the Presiding Officer's 15-minute flexibility.

I welcome Brian Adam's suggestion. I have often wondered why we do not have a bell in parliamentary headquarters.

The time that is needed is the time that it takes for a person of average physical ability, or even of below average physical ability, to get from PHQ to the chamber to vote in time. Before we make the recommendation, I suggest that we canvas the views of the Parliamentary Bureau. At the moment, the bureau is the body that makes all timetabling decisions. We have not asked its members what they think about the proposal. Although there might be nothing in principle wrong with the idea of flexibility—I am happy to give the Presiding Officers that flexibility—I would like to hear what the bureau has to say before we take the recommendation any further.

That is a good point.

Perhaps there should be a 15-minute warning of the 15-minute warning. In other words, a warning that the bell will ring should be issued. Perhaps the televisions could be used, rather than a bell. The system is ours. Perhaps the televisions could carry a message that decision time will be brought forward. That warning would be issued 15 minutes before the bell was to ring.

The other issue is later decision times, to allow debates to run for as long as they have been scheduled to run at times when parliamentary business has been disrupted. There is a question not only about decision time being early and catching people short, but of it being extended. Shall we—as Kenneth Macintosh suggests—consult the bureau?

That would be wise.

We will reconsider the issue in the light of the bureau's response.

We should also consult on the appropriate mechanism for receiving the warning. We should put that to the SPCB, as well as to the bureau.

In a sense, the SPCB would simply have to follow whatever was decided, but I agree that we should consult widely.