Procedures Committee,

Meeting date: Tuesday, May 29, 2001

Official Report 286KB pdf

---

Questionnaire

The committee will recall receiving a paper from Donald Gorrie, which is included in annexe A of paper PR/01/5/8. We have before us a proposed questionnaire that will allow members to express their views on the issues that Donald has raised.

The clerk gave me a preview copy of the questionnaire and I suggested the inclusion of an additional question which, I see, has appeared. I am happy with the wording.

We have a draft letter from the clerk that indicates that the questionnaire is voluntary and that the results will be confidential. The questionnaire might give us some views that might be useful to us in subsequent discussions on the timing of questions, question time and so on.

Since the questionnaire is voluntary and will be confidential, why do we need to have the member's name on the form?

It would probably be useful for the clerks to know who has responded if they wanted to send a reminder to those who have not. John, why do you want to have the member's names?

Does the questionnaire have to be confidential?

It is suggested that it should be confidential. Would asking for the member's name work against confidentiality?

Our questionnaire on substitutes was confidential, but the clerks knew who had responded. Neither I nor any political person knew. The clerks knew because they wanted to get people who had not responded to do so—without much joy, I must say. However, the name is not hugely important and we can remove that requirement if it is felt that it should be removed.

On question 6, figures are available about how many members do not get called in debates. The Parliamentary Bureau and the Presiding Officers consider that matter fortnightly to establish whether changes need to be made to ensure that more members are called. It might be interesting to compare the actuality with the perception.

We should also take into account the fact that parties submit lists of speakers. Although the Presiding Officers do not adhere rigidly to party lists, if a member consistently finds that he or she is not able to get onto their party's list, they will obviously have much less chance of being called to speak than a member who does.

We should bear in mind those two factors when we consider the results of the questionnaire.

Are you seeking any elaboration of the questionnaire?

No.

That is valuable. Perhaps the wording could be changed. I was aiming the questionnaire at members who feel that they could have made constructive speeches, but who did not get a chance to do so. A question that is included asks:

"How many times do you consider that you could have made a constructive contribution to a debate but were not called to speak?"

That might not be the right form of words. Perhaps, rather than saying,

"were not called to speak",

it should say, "did not have an opportunity to make a speech". That might cover the business about members not getting on the parties' lists.

I would be inclined to leave the wording as it is because people do not always know that they are not on their party's lists. That might mean that they would not be able to make an informed judgment on the matter.

Perhaps there should not be party lists.

We might want to come back to that point in the light of findings.

Does the committee agree to allow the questionnaire to proceed?

Members indicated agreement.