Plenary, 12 Feb 2004

Meeting date: Thursday, February 12, 2004

Official Report 704KB pdf

---

Oral Questions and Emergency Bills

Good morning. The first item of business this morning is a debate on motion S2M-864, in the name of Iain Smith, on behalf of the Procedures Committee, on the committee's reports on oral questions and emergency bills.

I am pleased to see so many members here this morning for this fascinating debate, which I am sure will be very entertaining.

This morning's debate covers three reports by the Procedures Committee. Two deal with oral questions. We have also taken the opportunity to issue a separate report on emergency bills and to deal with the changes to standing orders that it recommends.

Much of the committee's time in the current session has been taken up with considering the issue of oral questions. Members may recall that, early in the session, after an initial short inquiry, we recommended changes to First Minister's question time. Our second report of 2003 follows from the committee's consideration of wider issues relating to oral questions that arose partly from the original exchange of correspondence between the Presiding Officer and the First Minister and partly from our initial inquiry into First Minister's question time. The main focus of the report is on oral questions to ministers, but we also considered other aspects of First Minister's question time that we were not able to cover in our first report, which considered specifically the length and timing of First Minister's question time.

We have considered again the timing of First Minister's question time because of our report on question time and because we indicated that we would do so at the end of 2003. The second report that we are debating, our first report of 2004, contains recommendations on the timing of First Minister's question time.

The biggest proposed change is to introduce a thematic element to question time. The overall length of question time would be extended to an hour. We envisage that, of that hour, about 40 minutes would be allocated to questioning on one or two of the week's themes, with the remaining time being used for general questions, as at present. The themes for the week would be decided in advance, by means of a rota of Executive departments. We envisage that the rota would be decided before each main recess, so that members would have sufficient time to prepare for meetings when questions for particular departments would come up.

The new rules that we recommend do not prescribe how many themes should be dealt with each week and do not say what the themes should be. However, we envisage that initially they would be in line with the six themes that the Executive suggested to the committee in its evidence. Each theme would normally cover two Cabinet portfolios, but because health tends to attract a large number of questions, it would be dealt with on its own. We envisage that two of the six themes would be taken at each question time. The rota would ensure that there would be questions on each theme roughly every three weeks. Such a system would be sufficient to allow in-depth questioning of each minister on a three-weekly basis.

We were conscious that there was a feeling that topicality in question time needed to be retained and that members should have the opportunity to ask any minister a question in any week on a matter that might be too urgent to wait for the next time that that theme appears on the rota. For that reason, we recommend that a period of general question time similar to the present format be retained. We also considered how questions should be selected and agreed that we should retain the existing random process.

I apologise if I have not read the reports properly, but can the member explain the proposed timescales that are attached to each of the suggestions? I know that there was a debate about whether there should be 20 minutes for each theme and 10 minutes for general questions, or 10 minutes for each theme and 20 minutes for general questions. What does the Procedures Committee propose?

The committee is not recommending that standing orders should specify a fixed period for themed and general questions, to allow the Presiding Officer the flexibility to take account of the balance of questions in a particular week. However, the committee recommends that normally there should be 20 minutes for each theme, followed by 20 minutes of general questions. There would be three sessions of 20 minutes each week.

We agreed that random selection was the fairest way of selecting questions and should be retained. However, we considered whether members should be entitled to have a question in each of the three slots, if there are three slots in a week, or whether they should be restricted to one. In general, we came to the conclusion that members should be able to lodge a question for each section of question time. Members may put up to three questions a week into the random draw.

We also considered again issues relating to First Minister's question time. We believed that, generally speaking, the new format of half an hour was working well, as in every week since it was introduced all six questions have been reached. The new format also allows the Presiding Officer to select more back-bench supplementary questions.

We considered at length whether the open, diary-type questions that the leaders of the two main Opposition parties tend to ask should be retained. The device enables members to get round the rules for giving notice of questions and the committee believed that it allows for spontaneity and for issues of particular interest on the day to be raised.

We had to recognise that there is a balance in question time. It is partly about holding the Executive to account, partly about the politics of the event and partly about obtaining information. We did not want to disturb that balance, so we considered carefully how question time operates to ensure that the balance between the different themes remains. It should be remembered that there are other ways of holding the Executive to account—it is not just about question time in the chamber. For example, committees have an important role in holding the Executive to account.

We considered emergency questions and concluded that the existing process is satisfactory. We also considered questions to the Presiding Officer and the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body, which was raised by the Presiding Officer. Having done so, we agreed to recommend a revised process for questions to the corporate body. That would allow an oral question time to be scheduled at the discretion of the Parliamentary Bureau, which would lodge a motion to allow a session of up to 15 minutes for questions to the corporate body, which would be held on a regular basis. That is an important change to standing orders.

We took evidence not just from anoraks involved in the parliamentary process, but from beyond what are often referred to as the usual suspects. With the support of participation services, we commissioned two pieces of work. We conducted a survey of those who attended question time and First Minister's question time to find out what they thought of the event. That was a useful exercise, which gave us interesting feedback on what people thought. We also held a participation exercise involving a number of community groups: Building Healthy Communities, the Community Connections project, Community Links, the Democracy Disability and Society Group, Inverclyde Community Development Trust and Moray Against Poverty Network. The exercise was particularly beneficial and I place on record my thanks to those organisations for participating in the focus groups, which provided very interesting information.

We also made some recommendations in relation to emergency bills. Essentially, the recommendations are designed to tidy up the standing orders. At present, the process for emergency bills requires some other standing orders to be suspended, which we believed was not sensible. If the same standing orders have to be suspended regularly, it is better to change the standing orders to ensure that when a bill is declared to be an emergency bill the process is in place to deal with it.

During the committee's deliberations, was any thought given to the powers of the Presiding Officer with respect to control of question time and First Minister's question time?

We gave consideration to the powers of the Presiding Officer and took evidence from him. We believe that the powers and discretion that he has are adequate and that the Presiding Officer is satisfied with the powers that he has to control question time—he is nodding. We do not believe that there is a need to change the powers and discretion that are available to the Presiding Officer.

The final issue that we dealt with was the much more vexed question of the timing of First Minister's question time. There are considerable differences of opinion in the chamber—and, indeed, in the committee—on whether moving First Minister's question time to 12 o'clock has been a success. On balance, the committee felt that it was perhaps too early to come to a final decision on that issue. We felt that the experiment had been running for only a relatively short time—a couple of months—and we felt that the changes that we were proposing for question time as a whole were quite fundamental. We wanted to ensure that those changes could be examined in their own right.

Question time is a parliamentary occasion and should be able to stand on its own two feet. The committee wanted to be able to judge the effectiveness of the changes made to question time separately from the issue of when First Minister's question time should be held. Therefore, we felt that we should continue to run the existing experiment at 12 noon for a further period, and, in parallel, run the new experiment on question time.

I have probably run over time already so I conclude by saying that the Procedures Committee believes that the Parliament should be willing to consider change and should not become set in its ways. We should avoid the "aye been" syndrome. Therefore, we recommend these changes to standing orders for question time as an experiment, to see how effective they are. We will reconsider the experiment later in the session and, before the summer recess, we intend to produce a further report on whether we think that the changes should be made permanent. The committee feels that we should have in place a permanent system for question time for when we move to our permanent home in Holyrood after the summer.

I move,

That the Parliament notes the Procedures Committee's recommendations for changes to the format of Question Time and other aspects of oral questioning in its 2nd Report, 2003 (Session 2), Oral Questions in the Chamber, and about the timing of First Minister's Question Time and Question Time in its 1st Report, 2004 (Session 2), Oral Questions and Time in the Chamber, further notes the Committee's recommendations for changes to the procedure for Emergency Bills in its 2nd report, 2004 (Session 2), Report on Emergency Bills, and agrees that the changes to standing orders set out in Annexe A to the 2nd Report, 2003 (Session 2) and in Annexe A to the 2nd Report, 2004 (Session 2) should be made with effect from 13 February 2004.

I begin by making a quick comment on the proposed changes to the procedures for emergency bills, as outlined in the Procedures Committee's report on emergency bills. The purpose of the committee's deliberations on the topic was to ensure that the process could be smoothed out with regard to the number of procedural motions required. We recognised that the timetabling of emergency bills could be controversial, so we took the opportunity to ensure that motions could be open to amendment and debate. That was the right decision. We believe that the changes that are laid out in the annex to the committee's report will achieve our objective, and we recommend that the Parliament support them.

I turn now to ordinary question time. There is a general view in the chamber that question time, as currently structured—and, in particular, since it became detached from First Minister's question time—has not proved to be as worthwhile an experience as it might have been, for either parliamentarians or members of the public. It has evolved into a process of exchanging information, with little real atmosphere or bite. There is little or no opportunity to explore any particular issue in depth with a minister. That is why I hope that a move to thematic questions—although it would be more accurate to call them department-based questions—will be of greater worth. In the meantime, it is right that we continue to have a 20-minute slot to deal with topical issues that a member may raise. That will allow members to put a minister under greater scrutiny and will lead to a more forensic style of questions.

The proof of that particular pudding will be in the eating. That is why it is important that we have a trial period. It will be down to members to make oral question time much more relevant and to add value to the parliamentary week. It was right for the Procedures Committee to decide that we should continue to have an element of topicality so that members continue to have the opportunity of raising important and perhaps pressing constituency questions.

I said earlier that oral question time has had less value since becoming detached from First Minister's question time. I believe that that is true, but I also believe that—at least for the time being—we cannot allow oral question time and First Minister's question time to run together. Let me explain why I believe that, building on what Iain Smith said.

If oral questions are to be a success in their own right and are to bring real value to the parliamentary week, they must be able to stand on their own merits and not be propped up by First Minister's question time. That was what happened with the previous arrangement. It will be fatal to question time if it cannot show that it has its own value and if it has to rely on First Minister's question time for its oxygen. That is the main reason why I believe that the committee was correct to decide, for now, to keep oral question time apart from First Minister's question time. If, at the end of the trial period, oral question time has shown that it cannot stand on its own merits, that will be the time to re-examine whether reconnecting it with First Minister's question time would improve the parliamentary week.

At the end of the trial period, we will have to reconsider the impact of the 12 o'clock start for First Minister's question time on participation rates—in respect of attendance in the public gallery and of media exposure. The figures from "Holyrood Live" show that the number of people who watch First Minister's question time has dropped remarkably. However, some of the statistics from broadcasting organisations were suspect, to say the least. The disparity in the figures—7,000 one week and 36,000 the next—is so large that there must be question marks over their accuracy. We must look into that in more depth, because I do not believe that the information that we have received is robust enough. When neither the quality of information, nor the quantity, is available, grounds for making an unsafe decision exist. The Tories—and Jamie McGrigor in particular—pressed hard on this issue; but I say to Jamie that we must consider more than just "Holyrood Live". We did not have any information on the impact of the changes to First Minister's question time on the lunchtime news.

I thought that that might get him up.

I thank the member for taking an intervention. Does he agree that, if there is important news at lunch time, First Minister's question time often does not get shown at all?

I am a bit mystified about how to answer that question, because I am not sure exactly what Jamie McGrigor means. If important news happened when First Minister's question time was at its previous time, it had no chance of getting on the lunchtime news. With the 12 o'clock start, there is always a chance of greater exposure, provided that the issues being raised in the chamber are significant enough.

I have to keep an eye on the time.

You have plenty of time, Mr Crawford.

In that case, I am happy to take another intervention.

Perhaps I did not make my point very well.

Correct.

The point that I am making is this: if there happens to be very important news on a particular day, there is often no coverage on the news of what goes on in the Parliament.

That is about relevance and about how lively First Minister's question time is. It is down to the subject. However, if First Minister's question time is held in the afternoon, it has no chance of being on the lunchtime news—or the 6 o'clock news, come to that. That is the point. We need to examine how often there is an impact on the news.

The easy option would have been to do what Jamie McGrigor did and to try to give the Executive a bloody nose. We could have done that and won the argument in committee to move First Minister's question time away from 12 noon, but the Procedures Committee does not exist to play political games; the duty of the Procedures Committee is to do the right thing. The decisions that we take will have to stand the test of time. The procedures that we set in place for the people who will follow us into the Parliament are the most important thing. It is not always about giving people a bloody nose.

Will the member take an intervention?

Do I have time, Presiding Officer?

You do indeed.

Is not another duty of the Procedures Committee to ensure that the objectives of the consultative steering group are met? I am thinking about its objectives on accessibility, openness, responsiveness and public participation. Should those not be fundamental considerations for the committee?

Of course they should. That is why we need to have much more robust and rigorous information available to us so that, when we look at the issue again later in the year, we can examine the issues that the member raises in a lot more detail.

I depart from the views of the convener of the Procedures Committee on one issue that relates to Phil Gallie's point. I think that the Presiding Officer should have been given more control, not just over questions but over answers. I realise that it is not always easy for ministers to answer questions concisely, but there are occasions when ministers waffle on, to cover up an issue to which they do not have an answer to hand. On such occasions, the Presiding Officer needs to have the power to shorten the minister's contribution and to ensure that the answer is relevant to the question that was asked. I would like us to come back to that issue later.

I have been speaking for nine minutes so I will conclude by returning to my earlier point. The Procedures Committee exists to ensure that we put in place robust and rigorous procedures that will stand the test of time, so that the people who follow us in the Parliament have a worthwhile system that makes the parliamentary week work well.

I support the committee's report.

I want to talk about moving First Minister's question time and about how that move has affected ministers' question time, because that is important for everybody in the chamber—and for the people who are not here now.

I regret to say that the moving of First Minister's question time from the Thursday afternoon slot to Thursday at noon represents the triumph of spin over substance and the triumph of party-political interests over parliamentary and public interests. We can sum up the reason for the switch in two words: Alastair Campbell. Mr Campbell convinced Mr Blair to move Prime Minister's question time from a mid-afternoon to a noon slot at Westminster, so that it could be spun more effectively—in his way—on the news. Predictably, the same new Labour mindset finally made it north of the border and Mr McConnell's spinners up here decided that what was good for Tony must be good for Jack.

Has the move been good for Jack, though? Maybe it has, but I do not think that we can possibly claim that it has been good for the Scottish Parliament or for the public. Since the move, there has been a distinct loss of atmosphere in the chamber, in particular at question time. I am glad that Bruce Crawford agrees that that is the case.

Is it the First Minister's responsibility to make question time work, or is that members' responsibility?

It is the Parliament's responsibility to make question time work as best as it can for the people of Scotland.

Let us consider how the figures stack up. Since the switch, the viewing figures for the BBC's "Holyrood Live" have plummeted from an average of 46,000 to an average of 18,000. We have no excuse, because the BBC and the Parliament's broadcasting unit warned us that that would happen. Those figures represent a huge number of people in a small country such as Scotland.

Will the member give way?

Later on.

The audience of "Holyrood Live" is not concentrated in one location, but can be found in every Highland village, every island community and every town and city in Scotland. Those who support the switch claim that it has been good for visitors to the Parliament, and especially for schools. Of course those visitors are important, but their number cannot exceed 400, because that is the capacity of the gallery—and the capacity at Holyrood will be 250. Television represents a far greater public gallery.

Will the member give way?

Not now, I want to make progress.

However, the report emphasises the numbers in the public gallery. We carried out a survey of visitors, but can a survey of self-selected visitors truly reflect opinion? The survey was distributed only to people who attended First Minister's question time at 12 noon. There was no remit to survey a wider group and the option of holding First Minister's question time at 2 pm on a Thursday, prior to ministers' question time, was never included. Yet the results of that flawed survey are being used to hail the move as a great success, even though they show that only 53 per cent of those questioned in the survey supported the move to noon, which is hardly a ringing endorsement.

Does the member accept that one of the founding principles of the Scottish Parliament was to re-engage with the people of Scotland? Young people represent one of the age groups that have become the most disenchanted with politics. One of the Parliament's major achievements has been its ability to re-engage with young people. Young people from my constituency cannot participate in the Parliament if First Minister's question time takes place in the afternoon; they can do so now and have done so every week since the move to the noon slot.

I take the point that it is important to engage with schoolchildren and young people, but we can engage with far more young people—

No.

Yes we can. I am afraid that the member is wrong—she is talking only about the central belt. There has actually been a 5 per cent drop in attendance at First Minister's question time, from an average of 309 to an average of 295.

Sorry, but I tell the member this because it is true: the number of visitors to the public gallery has gone down. It is not as though we are saying that more people have visited the public gallery since the move; there have been fewer visitors. I cannot understand why some members say that the move has been a success—actually I think I can understand why. In fact, the move has led to a reduction in the number of visitors to the gallery, including schoolchildren, and there has been a huge drop in television viewing figures.

Why is the move being viewed as a success by its supporters? Let us consider those supporters.

Will the member give way?

No, I will not. All right, I will. Do I have plenty of time?

I am honoured and I am sure that Jamie McGrigor has plenty of time.

Does the member accept that the fact that First Minister's question time and ministers' question time take place in two different time slots allows many more people to view question time as a whole? The statistics that were given to the committee showed that more people were visiting the gallery over both sessions.

With the greatest respect to the member, that is the biggest load of rubbish that I have ever heard. The viewing figures speak for themselves. There has been a drop in gallery figures and a drop of thousands in the TV audience.

Let us consider who is supporting the move. I am not surprised that Mr McConnell and the Labour Party support it and I have said why. However, it is odd that the Scottish National Party's front bench supports the move. Bruce Crawford, the SNP business manager, is apparently keen on the idea—perhaps he is doing John Swinney's bidding. Why should such an alliance have been forged? Perhaps the SNP believes that by holding First Minister's question time at noon it will get coverage on the lunchtime news for all of a 20-second soundbite. That is the trade-off: a 20-second soundbite against good TV coverage for the whole of First Minister's question time. Perhaps the SNP does not want to expose Mr Swinney at all. Perhaps Mr Swinney just likes to have a long, relaxing lunch break after finishing an onerous First Minister's question time—who knows? I do not know.

People in glass houses, Jamie.

Given that the Parliament is committed to accessibility, the move is surely an outrage—I cannot understand it. First Minister's question time on "Holyrood Live" offered one of the few chances for the whole country to see its Parliament unfiltered and unedited.

Will the member give way?

No.

The coverage on "Holyrood Live" also gave back benchers a chance to shine—not many of them are here today—and gave people a chance to see their constituency and regional members performing or not performing, as the case may be.

The member seems to be putting forward the case that we should hold First Minister's question time at a time that maximises television viewing figures. That does not necessarily mean that it should take place at 3 pm; the figures might show that we would get the maximum number of viewers at 8 am. Does he suggest that we meet then? That is the logic of his position.

Another minute would do nicely, Mr McGrigor.

Did the member say 3 am? We should certainly not meet at 3 am, although I would support late meetings of the Parliament.

I appreciate that the news coverage might attract more viewers for 20 seconds than "Holyrood Live", but live TV coverage offers the one chance that the public have to see their Parliament in action. The 20-second soundbite hardly ever features back benchers, even when they have asked a question, because the BBC leaves the action in the chamber to go to the analysis with Iain McWhirter at 12:20—and sometimes earlier—which is the very point at which back benchers get their chance to ask the First Minister a question. That is unfair. Back benchers of all parties should not let the Alastair Campbell mindset dictate how the Parliament runs its business.

Given that our Parliament is committed to maximising access to proceedings, it is irresponsible to throw away half of the TV audience. Let us get back to making the Parliament as public and as transparent as possible and let us try to put substance before spin.

My colleagues and I regard the issues that we are discussing as parliamentary and individual; the Executive parties and others do not have a set view on which they will vote and debate accordingly. I speak as an anorak: I am a former enthusiastic member of the Procedures Committee—a citizen of procedure land now in exile elsewhere. The Procedures Committee has produced some interesting points. My colleagues and I have great confidence that the convener, Iain Smith, will sustain liberal values in the committee's work.

The tidying up of the emergency bill procedure is sensible. I have read the report on that issue, but I missed, if it exists in the text, what is to happen to the existing procedure whereby the Presiding Officer and his office authorise bills and say that they do not trespass on wholly—or holy—Westminster ground. The law people also have to do their bit. The lady in London whose title I never remember and who is paid a lot for doing very little evidently has to authorise such bills. I presume that those procedures will still apply. I see that Iain Smith is nodding his head in the correct manner. Thank you. Other than that query, I thought that the tidying up of the procedure is excellent.

On the issue of questions, I must be careful, Presiding Officer, because you were a major participant in producing the text that members have been reading before the debate. If members do not enthusiastically support the Presiding Officer's view, that is a bit like criticising Hamlet for his soliloquy.

I am an enthusiast for themed questions at general question time, which is one procedure that works quite well at Westminster. The introduction of themed questions here is a good step forward. I hope that there will be flexibility with regard to supplementary questions so that members who have already asked a question and who would otherwise probably not be likely to be called could sneak in a point that they were trying to raise as a supplementary on the back of another member's question. That would allow the issue to be probed as well as possible.

One difficulty for the authorities and the Presiding Officer is that, to oversimplify, there are two types of question. For example, my colleague who represents the area keeps asking about Laurencekirk station—legitimately so—but other members ask general questions about rural transport or urban congestion. A balance must be struck between general policy questions and "What are you doing about my little patch?" questions because it would be a pity if either type dominated proceedings. The general idea of a themed question time is a good step forward and I hope that the trial works well.

I am one of a fair number of members who think that the morning is not such a good time for First Minister's question time, but it is a reasonable compromise that the trial should continue. I am not sure whether it will be possible to reach a conclusion by the Easter recess rather than the summer recess, but I suggest that if, by Easter, the general opinion is clearly that the new system is not working as well as it might, we should correct the matter then. To find out how the system is working, we must examine more carefully the subjects of who watches BBC television and how many children come to the chamber and from which areas. Unfortunately, we must accept that television is an important medium, which means that anything that reduces the television audience must be viewed with suspicion.

On the content of questions, I accept the point that I think Karen Gillon made—it may have been Cathie Craigie—that MSPs as well as ministers are to blame for bad question times. I have attended committee meetings in which the average length of the questions was longer than the average length of the replies, which is wrong. Some MSPs use supplementary questions to make mini-speeches, which is also wrong. That is a difficult situation for the referee sitting in the chair—the Presiding Officer—to get right. If we encourage members to ask short, sharp questions and the minister to make similar replies, the system will work better. However, I accept the Presiding Officer's opinion that dark words in the corridor may be more effective than rules that are difficult to interpret.

The Procedures Committee's proposals are a step forward. I do not think that having First Minister's question time at midday has been a success, but I accept that we should extend the trial to find out whether we can make the new system better. In general, the proposals will improve the working of the Parliament.

I call Cathie Craigie.

It is a bit of a surprise to be called to speak, Presiding Officer—I thought that one of my colleagues was to be next. However, I thank you for the opportunity to speak; I am sure that you have been inundated with requests. It is an honour to be called, given the demand.

From the massed ranks.

Yes.

As members know, the Procedures Committee has considered and been exercised by the issues of First Minister's question time and questions to ministers for several months. I am sure that the committee members agree that we sometimes felt as if we were going round in circles and that we could not please everybody all the time.

We asked whether FMQT should run back to back with questions to ministers; whether FMQT has been a success at 12 noon and should be kept at that time; whether it should be held on Thursdays or Wednesdays; whether we should change questions to ministers to another day; whether we should have only themed questions or themed and general questions; how long should be given to themed and general questions; and how many questions members should be allowed to submit. That is not an exhaustive list of our questions.

The committee has listened to and considered the many points that have been raised. I am sure that if members have read our report or attended the committee—which is compulsive viewing on Tuesday mornings—they will know that we received many responses to our questions. However, the flood of responses did not show that a consensus exists out there about the answer to any of the questions that we posed. There was no consensus among groups—even party-political groups—on many of our questions.

As Bruce Crawford said, the information that we have about broadcasting is not detailed enough. We need more information on, and analysis of, how FMQT is received through all the broadcast media. It was not the correct road to go down to base our recommendations simply on the viewing figures for "Holyrood Live", important though that is to the work of the Parliament.

It was important that we took on board what was being said by the public in the gallery. There was some debate in the Procedures Committee about how reflective of the views of the public those opinions would be. I feel strongly that none of us should control who is in the gallery—it is for the public to choose to come along in groups or individually. The views of the people who are watching are important. On Jamie McGrigor's point, I refer him to the papers that were issued to the Procedures Committee—probably just after our report was compiled—which detail the number of people in the galleries during FMQT and questions to ministers. He will see that, on most days, the numbers were greater at those times than at other times. We cannot base our recommendations on that, however.

We are right to recommend a new approach to FMQT and questions to ministers, in which questions are themed—that should continue for a period so that we can reflect on how successful or otherwise it has been.

There was general agreement in the committee with Bruce Crawford's suggestion that question time must stand on its own. The idea that FMQT and questions to ministers should support each other is not a sufficient reason to move either of them. An increasing number of members are missing questions to ministers and FMQT—if those forums are unable to sustain the interest of members, we should ask the question posed by Bruce Crawford about whether it is worth continuing with them.

I hope that we will participate in the trial period and, as the convener of the Procedures Committee said, that we will be ready with a system that will serve us in the new Parliament building.

I preface my remarks with some general comments. I do not believe that the modus operandi of the Parliament is anywhere near right. I hope that the reforms to question time that are being introduced by the Procedures Committee will be the start of wide-ranging reform of how we conduct our business. I have three examples of where we still have got it badly wrong.

The first is the way in which we schedule debates and the time that we allocate to important debates. Debates on the Scottish economy in the Scottish Parliament average 1 hour and 50 minutes. However, an average of 7 or 8 hours was allocated to debates on the Scottish economy at Westminster—big, bad Westminster—over the 20 years before this Parliament was set up. That does not reflect well on the Scottish Parliament and it does not fulfil what was meant to be our democratic ambition.

Secondly—

I ask you not to make your introduction too long, Mr Neil, before you get to the substance of the motion.

Absolutely.

Secondly, another general issue that I hope that the Procedures Committee will address is that of speaking times and the grip that the party hierarchies have on who speaks and in what order.

I will address the specific issues—

How did the member manage to get to speak today?

I am thinking of the 35 Labour back benchers who are always struggling to get on to the list.

On that point, and for Mr Neil's elucidation, the system is run on a first-come, first-served basis for Labour members. The quicker members are, the quicker they get on to the list. Does the member agree that that is the way that it should be in all parties?

I think that it should be up to the Presiding Officer, but that is a debate for another day.

Precisely.

On FMQT—let's face it—John and Jack will never get the viewing figures of Des and Mel. The main issue for us is not whether 20,000 or 30,000 more people watch at 2.30 pm or 3 pm than watch at 12 pm. The maximum viewing figure for FMQT has never gone over about 50,000. FMQT—the highlight of the Scottish parliamentary week—could not, by any stretch of the imagination, be described as gripping the nation. It does not matter when it is held. Much of the reason for that is that, like question time, much of FMQT is boring to the average person watching television. That is the responsibility of front benchers and back benchers.

There are some specifics about FMQT that the committee has not addressed but which I believe, while perhaps not requiring a change to standing orders, nevertheless need to be addressed. A first-past-the-post member with a constituency interest is almost certain to be called to ask a question or a supplementary. List members are treated as if they do not have constituency interests. They have such interests, however. For example, anybody would agree—particularly Margaret Jamieson—that I have a particular interest in Kilmarnock prison. I also have a particular interest in the Greengairs issue, which is the subject of a question this afternoon. There are many issues to do with how supplementaries are selected and who is invited to ask them.

Seven or eight list MSPs, including Mr Neil, represent Central Scotland. Is he suggesting that when the Presiding Officer takes a question from a constituency member for that area, all the list members should get in as well?

No. There are seven list members for each area, and the parties that have list members tend to have members who lead in particular constituencies. For example, it is reasonably well known that I have taken the lead in recent years in most of the Lanarkshire constituencies, along with my colleague Linda Fabiani, while Michael Matheson has concentrated on, say, Falkirk. If that is known to the Presiding Officer, I would hope that it would be reflected in who is called to ask supplementaries. The idea that only first-past-the-post members have constituency interests is nonsense and does not properly reflect the make-up of the chamber.

I have many other points to make but I do not have time to make them because, to get back to my second point, the arrangements for speaking times in the chamber are a nonsense.

There is much to welcome in the three reports. The idea of a themed question time is a good one, as it will allow for proper questioning of ministers. After all, any question time should be about the whole Parliament properly scrutinising Executive ministers. The two 20-minute themed sections will be effective slots in which to do that. It is a worthwhile experiment, and it is good that we are carrying it out now, so that we can settle the matter before we move to the new building at Holyrood.

I am pleased that we are identifying ways of making progress with SPCB and Presiding Officer question times. I hope that the Parliamentary Bureau will take the opportunity to schedule such question times. In the evidence received by the Procedures Committee, it appeared that similar question times had been very successful in the Welsh Assembly. I hope that that experiment will be taken up in order to ensure that when we move to the new building, we will have a proper set of question times and a proper set of procedures for them.

I was new to emergency bills but they have been explained to me and I understand the logic of the proposals and suggestions that were made to the committee.

I think that we missed some areas in the reports. Other members have commented on the requirements of rule 13.7 of standing orders, which covers the way in which questions are asked. We should have explored in more depth the requirements on the way in which questions are answered. In particular, I refer to paragraph 8 of rule 13.7, which states that supplementary questions must cover the same subject matter as the original question and that they must be brief. It would have been worth while to explore further the idea that the answers to those questions should also cover the same area as the original question and should also be brief.

The convener of the committee mentioned the consultation exercises that were carried out. I was particularly struck by some of the things that were said by a community group from West Lothian. Having watched First Minister's question time, the group said:

"There was a lack of respect to fellow members in the chamber - too much chit-chat and hilarity while debates were taking place."

The group also felt that there was "too much heckling".

We should all reflect on those views. If we want the Parliament to be taken seriously, and if we want to project it as a place where serious things are discussed, we must conduct ourselves in a serious manner. If we do not do that, we will never be taken seriously. We should all reflect on how we can ensure that members treat one another with seriousness and that debates are conducted seriously.

I do not necessarily disagree with the member, but there is a logical inconsistency in his remarks. If we are not treated seriously, it is often in comparison with Westminster. On the other hand, behaviour at Westminster is far worse than behaviour here. How does the member explain that?

The problem is not about Westminster versus Holyrood but about the fact that politics is not taken seriously. One of the things that has undermined the general standing of the political system in the United Kingdom is that there have been too many "Order, order, order" debates in the House of Commons. I do not think that we should try to replicate such argument, heckling and shouting in this chamber. To do so would do nothing for us; having watched such behaviour, I do not think that it does anything for Westminster.

We ought to take cognisance of the views that have been expressed by the public. We should be serious about how we ask questions, serious about how ministers and the First Minister answer them, and serious about how we conduct ourselves as the audience during any question time.

Finally, I move to the timing of First Minister's question time, which is the issue that has dominated the debate so far. We should recognise the things that have worked. The fact that it lasts for half an hour allows more back benchers to get in and allows proper representation of the leaders of all the political parties in the chamber. We ought to recognise that those aspects are successes. However, I am still unconvinced of the success of the noon start for First Minister's question time. I accept that the experiment should continue, given that we are changing oral questions to ministers, but I remain unconvinced that noon is an effective time to start the session. For example, I was concerned that Karen Gillon would have to conclude the debate as members streamed in for First Minister's question time. The timing of First Minister's question time is disruptive to the debate that takes place on Thursday morning, and I do not think that it represents good scheduling.

First Minister's question time should be in the first slot—logically, to me, that means that it should start on Wednesday or Thursday afternoon. It has lost atmosphere and it is not in an effective slot for the Parliament. As Jamie McGrigor said, the new slot has lost an audience for the entire event, and that loss is not compensated for by limited coverage of the leader of the Opposition and the First Minister on the lunchtime news. We should continue to explore other options for First Minister's question time. I am prepared to let the experiment continue, but I am not convinced that it is working.

Mark Ballard finished on a point about the timing of First Minister's question time. I wonder whether we should consider moving it to first thing on Thursday morning as an experiment. It would be interesting to see whether it is so popular that everyone would flock to the chamber at that time. That would ensure that the alleged reason for changing the time is accounted for, because anything that is said in the morning could make it on to the lunchtime news. Overall, however, although I have my doubts about whether the change has been successful, it is too early to come to a conclusion.

There is a case for the separation of oral questions to ministers and First Minister's question time. The way that we did things in the past tended to undermine the importance of oral questions to ministers, and the separation has helped to focus attention on them. I think that it was Cathie Craigie or Margaret Jamieson who suggested that fewer people now attend question time. That might be the case, but there is more focus on those oral questions than there was in the past, when we were simply waiting for First Minister's question time to start. Perhaps it would help if the two sessions were on different days—that would give us more flexibility with time.

I have listened to the debate and I welcome much of the reports' contents. We should pay tribute—I am sure that the Procedures Committee does so regularly—to the clerking and admin staff, who effectively run the Parliament. Where would we be without the business bulletin or the Official Report? We have excellent staff, who do not always get the recognition that they deserve for the work that they put in. It is important for us to recognise that, and I am glad that the Procedures Committee's report refers to the implications of the change in timing for the staff, in terms of the turnaround of questions and deadlines. I hope that we will continue to keep such issues uppermost in our minds.

In my opinion, there are a couple of areas that the Procedures Committee has not yet fully investigated. I have raised the issue of supplementary questions before; I am not sure that we can solve it in this chamber, but I hope that we will do so in the new chamber. The Scottish Trades Union Congress, in its evidence to the Procedures Committee, raised the matter of the transparency of the selection of supplementary questions. I do not want to have a go at the Deputy Presiding Officers or the Presiding Officer, because they have a difficult task: they are faced with a limited timescale and a large number of members who want to ask supplementary questions. The difficulty is that the selection process is not transparent. Observers, whether they are in the gallery or watching television, do not know how many members want to ask a supplementary question or who they are. I wonder whether the panels in the new chamber will allow the request-to-speak lights to be more visible, so that the number of members who want to ask a supplementary question on a particular issue is more apparent. That would not be a hindrance to the Presiding Officer—

Will the member take an intervention?

Sure.

Does the member agree that one of the benefits of the Westminster system is that individuals rise when they want to catch the Speaker's eye? That gives the indication that Tommy Sheridan refers to.

It gives an indication, but it is not effective. Everyone who has watched debates at Westminster has seen a large number of people rising, only one of whom is selected. I do not think that that is a particularly effective or modern method of attracting the attention of the Speaker. If members of the public who watch Scottish Parliament debates on television or from the gallery were to see lots of members repeatedly rising to ask questions and sitting down, it would not look particularly modern or efficient.

However, if we had a system whereby a light came on to show that a member was trying to ask a question, that would show the difficulty that the Presiding Officer has when there is a limited amount of time but lots of members trying to come in. It would also show any observers that their MSP wanted to ask a question. The public might be sitting there thinking, "Why are you not asking a question?" and although the member has tried to ask a question, they have no way of proving that. If they could show that they had tried to ask a question, that would confirm the interaction between the member and the public. It would be worth while for the Procedures Committee to look into that idea.

The Procedures Committee should be a special committee.

It is a very special committee.

What I mean by that—and I mean no offence to any of the committee's current members—is that it should be above politics, as it has the interests of the whole Parliament to consider. That is difficult as, apart from the independents, we are all members of political parties. It is difficult to be as objective as we need to be; nevertheless, the Procedures Committee has to try to develop that objectivity.

Finally, I hope that the Procedures Committee will be willing to consider the need for extra powers in the Parliament to hold ministers to account. The ministerial code, in itself, does not mean that ministers are above the accountability of other members. I hope that the committee will consider representations from members on that.

The Procedures Committee has given a great deal of consideration to the issues and reports that we are debating today. We propose to make the procedure for emergency bills more transparent so that it runs more smoothly. We have also sought to make changes to Executive question time to create a format that will not only allow more focused scrutiny of specific areas of the Executive's work on a broadly departmental basis, but make Executive question time more distinctive and, it is hoped, give it a higher profile in its own right.

The changes that we are suggesting to the timing and format of both First Minister's question time and Executive question time are on a trial basis. We believe that we are striking a balance between giving the new formats time to bed down and ensuring that tried and tested formats are in place when we move into our new chamber at Holyrood.

Even before the decoupling of the question times, it was clear that we had to examine ways in which to ensure that Executive question time had a distinct identity and a profile that did not simply feed off its proximity to First Minister's question time. We also needed to look to its format, rather than where it was in relation to FMQT, to find ways of attracting a larger audience and increasing its profile.

The idea of introducing a thematic element to Executive question time reflects the evidence that the committee received, which included a letter from the First Minister proposing that we consider such a change. Under the proposal, there will be six department-based themes, although, to allow for flexibility, we would not enshrine that in the standing orders. There would be questioning for two departments each week, allowing more focus on areas of ministerial responsibility. The additional time that we propose for Executive questions means that, every week, two themes will receive adequate time for debate.

The fact that we propose to continue to have an element of general questioning means that members will still be able to ask questions that either are not covered under the themes for questioning in that week but that need to be discussed because they are topical, or do not fall neatly into the themes that have been suggested. Moreover, all members will have an equal right to ask questions and an equal chance of having their questions selected. I believe that it is good for back benchers that we did not accept the proposal to have a mini-FMQT on a departmental basis, as that would have placed the majority of the focus on party spokespeople.

Almost inevitably, the issue in the committee's recent deliberations that has received most attention, especially outwith the committee, is that of the format and timing of FMQT. I say to Jamie McGrigor that, although Alastair Campbell has been accused of many things, he can rarely have been accused of setting the time for questions in the Scottish Parliament. Given the fate of others, Mr McGrigor should perhaps exercise caution before trying to hold Alastair Campbell accountable for that.

I was describing the Alastair Campbell mindset. I said that Tony Blair had been persuaded to change the timing of Prime Minister's question time at Westminster because of the mindset across the border and that an Alastair Campbell mindset had been adopted here.

The mindset of Alastair Campbell is to get as much attention and publicity as possible for the Prime Minister and his policies. That is why Prime Minister's question time was moved to an earlier time. He probably made the same judgment as was made here when we decided that we wanted to try to get a broader cross-section of the Scottish public listening to and watching FMQT.

Our report reflects a widely held opinion that the allocation of additional time for FMQT has worked well, giving adequate opportunity for minority party leaders to ask questions and giving back benchers a reasonable chance of asking a question or a supplementary. The report also reflects the view that the current format of FMQT is successful.

More controversial is the timing of FMQT. Much of the committee's debate focused on the audience figures for programmes that cover FMQT, such as "Holyrood Live". As Bruce Crawford said, the BBC gave evidence arguing against the current timing of FMQT, which it believes has adversely affected the audience figures. There is no doubt that "Holyrood Live" provides invaluable coverage of the Parliament's work. However, we must look at the broader picture of the coverage of FMQT on other BBC programmes and across the channels. The highlights of FMQT cannot be broadcast on the BBC lunchtime news or on the lunchtime news of STV or Grampian TV.

Will Richard Baker take an intervention?

I do not have time. I am in my last minute.

The cumulative audience figure for all those programmes is much higher than the figure that "Holyrood Live" is able to achieve.

The issue is not only about television audience figures. The fact is that the shift in time has made it easier for schoolchildren to attend. We gathered, from our questionnaires from people who had attended FMQT, that many people found the current time convenient.

The changes that we propose mean that both question times will run in their new formats for a trial period. We will then have an opportunity to review their success before we settle on the formats that we will use in the new Parliament building. That is a sensible approach. The changes that we have recommended are innovative and give us an opportunity to take more interest in the way in which we ask questions of ministers. I commend the conclusions of the committee's reports to Parliament.

This has been an interesting, if poorly attended, debate. We have the public up in the public gallery and we are wondering what the television people are thinking about the debates in the place. When the public come to view what is happening in this arena and see only 15 out of 129 MSPs, the Procedures Committee could do an awful lot worse than see what it can do about the lack of attendance. I do not know whether that is part of the committee's remit. Frankly, to stand and take part in a debate on parliamentary navel gazing is not the most exciting prospect in the world, but these things have to be done.

I agree that we have to consider when we should have First Minister's question time and Executive question time to make the maximum impact. However, the most important question that we can address is the non-attendance of members during the 12 hours for which we are in the chamber.

Does the member recognise that there are other ways in which members can pay attention to what is going on in the chamber without having to be physically present? I always have the chamber TV channel on in my office during the day when I am working but not in the chamber.

I agree, but how many of the 129 members are here? Where is everyone else? They all have important duties to carry out but, as a newcomer to this place, I am appalled at their lack of attendance in the chamber. I think that the Procedures Committee should look into that.

I support the comments that have been made by John Swinburne. The Parliament sits in plenary session for one and a half days a week. I am concerned about the shortness of time that members have in which to make their speeches in the Parliament. One thing that the Procedures Committee must do—especially if it is going to extend question time—is reconsider the hours of the plenary meetings and perhaps extend them as well.

The member will be aware that one of the report's recommendations is to increase the length of plenary meetings on Thursdays to accommodate the extra half hour by which we have increased the question times—10 minutes for First Minister's question time and 20 minutes for Executive question time.

Yes, I am aware of that. I am pleased about that extension. It is a part of the report that I endorse.

Earlier, Mr Smith commented on the powers of the Presiding Officer in respect of question times—indeed, the Presiding Officer acknowledged his point. I believe that that has to be looked at. When back benchers ask a question, they are obliged to stick to the point of the question that is in the business bulletin—they must ask a closed question. I accept that the Presiding Officer should ensure that members do that, but I believe that the Presiding Officer should also have the power to hold ministers to the same line rather than allowing them to expand the answer and go on for quite some time in a way that was described earlier as waffling. We have to tighten up on that. The Presiding Officer should have the same powers as the Speaker in the House of Commons has to ensure that ministers stay in line.

Mark Ballard said that having thematic questions is a good idea. Of course it is; the proposal was advanced by David McLetchie nearly two years ago. David McLetchie has a lot of good ideas and the Parliament would be extremely wise if it took some of them on board.

This has hardly been the most riveting debate that the Parliament has had, but it is, nevertheless, an important one. In debating such issues, we are dealing with the presentation of the Scottish Parliament. We have a clear duty to present the Parliament in its most interesting and attractive form. The Procedures Committee should have been considering whether our procedures allow that to happen.

The committee's reports suffer from the curate's-egg syndrome, in that they are good in parts. We support some of the measures, such as the improved ways of dealing with emergency bills, provided that there is no difficulty with Opposition parties being able properly to hold the Executive to account. I am sure that there would not be. We are also enthusiastic proponents of the idea of thematic question times. Karen Gillon will recall that I was enthusiastic about the idea when I gave evidence to the committee. The proposal would certainly make for much more interesting question times.

On the issue of emergency bills, does Bill Aitken accept that the committee recommended that amendments could be lodged at a later stage than usual in the emergency bill procedure and that that process did not exist before? The committee has strengthened the position of back benchers and Opposition parties. I suggest that Bill Aitken is being overly critical in that regard.

I was merely adding the caveat that we have to ensure that Opposition parties have the opportunity to approach these matters in the manner in which they would wish to. There certainly have been improvements.

I believe that thematic question times could bring considerable benefits to Parliament. Let us be honest: we are all politicians and know that politicians rarely ask a question without knowing the answer. Nevertheless, that is politics.

Like Jamie McGrigor, I am extremely disappointed that, despite the fact that the experiment with First Minister's question time has manifestly failed, as Mark Ballard noted, the committee has not suggested that the matter be revisited. It does not require self-styled anoraks such as Donald Gorrie to detect that the timing is extremely unfortunate.

Does the member accept that the committee has agreed to revisit the matter? We have said that the trial period will be extended, which means that we will consider the matter again before the summer.

I accept that the move is experimental but, when the experiment is manifestly failing, why continue with it?

Jamie McGrigor was quite correct. Regardless of whether Alastair Campbell was involved, an unholy alliance between the Executive and the SNP has resulted in a deliberate attempt to change the time of FMQT in order to avoid the exposure of some fairly weak arguments, which we in the chamber have seen time and again. Mr Swinney has been discomfited during the exchanges, as Mr McGrigor quite rightly pointed out. Alex Neil was sitting to the rear of the chamber like an inscrutable Buddha, nodding his head as Mr McGrigor made that suggestion, although I am sure that that was purely coincidental.

The new timing of FMQT has resulted in plummeting television audiences. We have failed in a principal duty. We are not here to act as performing seals, but we are supposed to allow the public to see exactly what is happening in the Parliament. The timing of FMQT is an inhibiting factor in that respect.

The speeches of Jamie McGrigor and Bill Aitken were pathetic. Apart from the fact that they ignored most of what was in the Procedures Committee's reports, they built a castle in the air on the back of the alleged drop in television audience numbers. There has been a small change in what was already a very small number. Now, 97 per cent of the viewing public do not watch First Minister's question time, whereas previously 93 per cent did not.

Will the member give way?

I do not have time.

The fact is that the vast majority of people now prefer to watch strange people of whom I have never heard doing even stranger things in the middle of the jungle. How any Parliament would even try to compete with that, I do not know. I do not think that we should arrange our proceedings on the desire to maximise the attractiveness of this place to people who prefer to watch that kind of programme.

Themed question times are possibly a good idea, as they would allow much more in-depth scrutiny. However, we should be aware of the dangers that could arise from that proposal. Members have specific interests—not all of us are generalists—which means that some members will not have an interest in what is going on in a specific themed question time. In the House of Commons, which has 659 members, many of the question times are attended by a relatively small proportion of members. If we, with 129 members, follow that example proportionally, the numbers attending the themed question times will be extremely small. We will have to watch that carefully.

When I gave evidence to the Procedures Committee, I talked about the grouping of questions. Questions on the same topic are more likely to occur in a themed question time and it is possible that several people will ask exactly the same question. It would make a lot of sense if the Presiding Officer could group those questions together so that the members and the minister did not have to repeat the same formal questions and answers before dealing with the supplementary questions and answers. I should add that only those questions that were likely to be called should be so grouped. I do not know whether the standing orders will allow that to happen, but, if not, perhaps they should be reconsidered.

I am beginning to change my mind about what I said to the committee about having a 20-minute general question time tacked on to the beginning of the themed questions. Members might not lodge questions because there would be little chance of their question being selected. Moreover, a problem might arise with invidious comparisons being made between the two forms of question time.

I liked Mr Sheridan's point about being able to see in the chamber who has indicated a desire to ask a question or speak in a debate. I do not know whether that could be done with lights above the desk or whether the Presiding Officer's screen could be writ large somewhere in the chamber—I have never seen that screen, but I assume that, in this open and accessible Parliament, there are no secrets on it. However, I would hesitate at this stage to make a change that might add a further £100 million to the cost of Holyrood.

Phil Gallie suggested extending the hours of plenary meetings. We will come under pressure to do that, if for no other reason than that we will soon be sitting in an extremely expensive and flashy new chamber and, if the public get the impression that that is being used only one and a half days a week—the new chamber will not be used for committee meetings, unlike this one—we will be exposed, justly, to some criticism.

As an old hand in procedures debates, I reassure Iain Smith that the turnout this morning has been quite good. I have painful memories of an occasion on which we were so short of speakers that the Presiding Officer sent a clerk to ask me if I would like to speak. I agreed to do so, thinking that I would have a few minutes in which to scribble some notes, but heard my name being called as soon as the clerk had turned to walk away. I ended up having to stand and waffle for five minutes. Even more worrying was that no one seemed to notice. However, perhaps we can improve the nature of procedures debates in future; certainly, a lot of interesting points have been made that will be taken up in future.

I acknowledge the work that has been undertaken by the convener and members of the Procedures Committee in producing such a comprehensive and creative set of reports. The Executive has welcomed the opportunity to contribute as the committee has considered the various issues that are under discussion this morning.

I will mention first of all and briefly the report on emergency bills, which, as members know, considers the technical aspects of rule 9.21 of standing orders and suggests some changes to improve the emergency bill process. The Executive is happy to welcome those changes; they seem to make sense and will improve our procedure.

The Executive also supports the committee's report on oral questions in the chamber and the recommendations contained therein. We have welcomed the opportunity to contribute to those discussions during the inquiry and our views on the committee's recommendations are already well documented through the memorandum that was submitted to the committee last October and the oral evidence that I gave to the committee in November.

The Executive endorses the committee's recommendation that the format of First Minister's question time should remain largely unchanged for the moment. One reason why the Executive and the First Minister were keen to extend FMQT from the 20 minutes that we used to have to 30 minutes was the recognition that back benchers did not always get an adequate share of the time that was available for questions and that, coming into the new session after the election, we had a different political situation in which the leaders of smaller parties also had to have an opportunity from time to time to ask questions. We are pleased to note that experience to date shows that the current 30-minute format seems to work well, enables more time to be given to back benchers and seems to allow us to get through all six of the questions that have been selected.

We also note the committee's suggestion that Executive question time should be extended to an hour and its recommendation of the introduction of a thematic element involving 40 minutes of in-depth questioning on a departmental rota basis. We welcome those proposals and the opportunity that they will give for back-bench scrutiny of Executive ministers and their policies. That is a good step forward and will improve ministerial accountability in a transparent and open way, which is one of the things that the Parliament is about. However, the Executive recognises and supports the need for the thematic system to be introduced—if we agree to that today—initially on a trial basis, as the committee proposes. That is the right way forward and it is right to subject the trial to a review after a period of time, as in the case of First Minister's question time.

We also support the committee's recommendation to move the lodging deadline for questions to 4 pm on a Tuesday. That will have the benefit not only of giving Executive officials enough time to undertake the necessary research to prepare answers, but of allowing the chamber desk staff ample time to process the questions. We are happy to work constructively with the Parliament in taking forward any revised procedures that are agreed today.

On the format of Executive question time and First Minister's question time, as discussed in the committee's reports, the Executive notes that, following an initial trial period, the committee now recommends that FMQT should remain at 12 noon on Thursdays, at least for the time being. We also note that Executive question time, in its revised format, with the thematic element, should start earlier—at 2 o'clock on the same day. Although we recognise that the average viewing figures for "Holyrood Live" have declined since FMQT was moved to an earlier time slot, we are pleased to note that there have been compensations, as other members indicated, in that the current timing has enabled more school pupils and other visitors to attend.

That might be all right for people who live in the central belt, but it has made matters worse for people who live in South Ayrshire, Aberdeen or Argyll—the new timing does not suit them.

I fail to see how the change can possibly have made matters worse. We still have a question time on a Thursday afternoon and we now have a question time in the morning as well, so there are two opportunities for people to come along. Moreover, it is fair to say that people are coming from around the country to be able to observe one or other of those question times.

The minister will be aware that, in our report on oral questions in the chamber, we have a breakdown of where people who were in the public gallery at a particular time came from. We found that 33 per cent of them came from outwith the central belt, compared to 32 per cent from Edinburgh and elsewhere in the central belt.

Karen Gillon makes exactly the point that I wanted to make to Mr Gallie—I hope that he will acknowledge what she has said. The change has been important.

On that point—

No, we have taken enough on that point.

I also want to come back to the point that Alex Neil made. I do not want to compare constituency and list members, because he is a bit touchy on that subject, but Labour members were slightly surprised, because we do not get to see daytime television very often—perhaps that is because we are constituency representatives, but we will not go there—and absolutely delighted to hear that Des McNulty was such a draw on daytime television. Somebody has said to me that Alex Neil was not talking about that Des, but never mind.

Alasdair Morgan made exactly the right point: First Minister's question time and Executive question time will never attract the kind of audience that some of the more tabloid-type programmes attract. That is because people do not engage with politics in the same way as they engage with some of the other broadcasts that they see on their televisions. However, we all have a responsibility to make the process work and to participate in a way that will encourage interest.

I appreciate what the minister says about "I'm A Celebrity … Get Me Out Of Here!", but the point is surely that, although there is allegedly apathy about politicians, we had an average audience of 46,000, which we have managed to reduce to 18,000. The audience figure was, in fact, as high as more than 100,000 on occasions, so I cannot see what the argument is. Fewer people are now seeing our Parliament and there is less access to it, which must be against the founding principles.

It is important to remember that the last figures for FMQT before it was moved had built up over four years. The number of people who now watch question time in its revised slot probably represents a fraction of the number of people who will watch it four years from now. We must take all those points into consideration, but I am also keen to encourage people, particularly young people and those visiting our education centre, to come into our public gallery and have the opportunity to see question time.

We also support the earlier start time of 2 pm for Scottish Executive question time. It is important that we avoid cutting into debating time in the afternoon, as we all know the difficulties that we will face in providing enough time for back-bench speakers if afternoon debates are curtailed any further.

As we noted in our formal response to the committee, the Executive endorses the recommendation that the new format of question time should itself be the subject of a trial, which should run in tandem with an extended trial period for FMQT at noon. We also endorse the committee's conclusion that both trial periods should be reviewed before the summer recess, when a full assessment can be made of the best arrangements to adopt for the future.

We look forward to working with the Procedures Committee in its deliberations in future and thank it for its constructive reports.

I will try to pull together the various points that have been raised in the debate and address some of the questions and comments that have been made.

Donald Gorrie, who seems to have left the chamber, asked about emergency bills meeting the tests for legislative competence. Obviously, before any emergency bill was introduced, it would have to have met those tests and would require a Presiding Officer's statement on legislative competence, as any other bill would under rule 9.3.1. Moreover, after it was passed, an emergency bill would be subject to the same challenge as any other bill. I hope that that provides reassurance.

Mark Ballard and other members asked whether there should be a rule on ministerial answers. We discussed that issue in some detail—it is addressed in paragraphs 89 to 92 and 97 of our second report of 2003. The main objection to a rule on ministerial answers is that it could give rise to a substantial number of bogus points of order—it is a bit ironic that one of the members who raised the issue was Phil Gallie, who, I believe, has raised the greatest number of bogus points of order in the Parliament over the past four years. A rule on ministerial answers could also give rise to confusion. The Presiding Officer has said that such a rule is not necessary, so we should allow him to continue to employ the measures that he has used. Obviously, if ministers do not make progress on the issue, we can review the matter in the months to come.

Tommy Sheridan made an interesting point about the transparency of the procedure for selecting supplementary questions. However, that issue is perhaps more for the parliamentary authorities than for the Procedures Committee. Perhaps more detailed consideration could be given to the use of information technology. An interesting suggestion was made that the lights on members' desks could be used to show who was requesting a supplementary. However, having watched question time from the other side when I was on maternity leave, I know that people who watch the proceedings on television do not get a span of the chamber but see only individual MSPs. The lights suggestion would certainly be helpful for people in the public gallery, but it would not work for television audiences.

Alasdair Morgan suggested that questions should be grouped together. However, the Presiding Officer has said that such a power would not be useful to him because he does not think that he should have that kind of scope.

Will the member take an intervention?

I will finish what I was saying before I let Alasdair Morgan intervene.

Over the past few weeks, the Presiding Officer has shown that, when the list of questions contains two questions on the same topic, he is able to group the questions by allowing the question that is further down the agenda to move up. That removes the subsequent question from the timetable and allows further questions to be asked. I appreciate that that is not the exactly the kind of grouping that Alasdair Morgan wanted. Perhaps we will need to return to the issue in the months ahead, once we see how the new themed question time progresses.

John Swinburne highlighted the poor attendance of members in the chamber. We all bear responsibility for that. If we were not involved in this morning's debate, would we be here? Given the analogies that have already been made, I think that it is more likely that we would say, "I'm a politician … get me out of here." However, it is important that we have these debates.

Notwithstanding those comments, does the member accept that there must be an understanding that much of the most valuable work that MSPs perform is done not inside the chamber but in the office, on the phone or writing letters on behalf of constituents?

I was about to make that point. We need to make choices about where we spend our time. Members attend debates in the chamber when they have a particular constituency or portfolio interest, but they also do a lot of valuable work outside the chamber. It is probably a bit of a fallacy to believe that members work only when they sit on these benches. Members probably do more work when they are elsewhere.

We meet in plenary session for only nine hours a week, so we have many other hours in which to do other work. Unlike at Westminster, this Parliament's procedures do not allow committee meetings to overlap with plenary meetings. In the main, members should surely be able to do their work outside the plenary sessions.

The matter is for individual members, who must look at what they do and how they spend their time.

Tommy Sheridan asked that the Procedures Committee be non-party political. I am sure that some might argue that we have not managed even to be political over the past six months. It would be wrong to say that we should be non-political—we are all political animals—but our committee has tried to operate in a non-partisan way and will continue to do so.

Finally, having already spent a lot of time on the issue, I find it sad that the timing of First Minister's question time has dominated today's debate. I feel that the jury is still out on the issue. Any change will require some time to bed in, but sufficient time has not been given for the change. Perhaps the Procedures Committee could be criticised for having set far too short a timescale in which to see whether the new arrangement would work. We should perhaps have allowed a longer trial period so that we could get a true reflection of what was happening. Members have raised genuine concerns about the timing of FMQT, but we will address those before the summer recess by examining the evidence that is available.

I do not buy some of the Tory arguments, which seem to amount to, "My man is not getting on the telly, so I don't like it and want to change it." If David McLetchie cannot make points that catch the 1 o'clock news headlines, that is not our responsibility but his. The Tories need to consider those issues.

Phil Gallie said that only people in the central belt can visit the chamber. He should tell that to the people from Crawford Primary School. Previously, they could not possibly have attended First Minister's question time in the chamber, because they would not have been able to travel the two and a half hours to be in time for their bus home.

Crawford is only an hour away.

If Phil Gallie can get to Crawford within an hour, he must be breaking the law.

The new time for FMQT has encouraged a much wider range of people to visit the chamber for both the morning and afternoon sessions and it has doubled the possibilities for people to view question time. If Executive question time cannot exist in its own right, that is not an issue for First Minister's question time. We are here not to create an atmosphere, but to scrutinise the Executive. That can be done in all sorts of ways.

We need to allow the new arrangements to bed in and to work through. I am happy to return to the issue before the summer recess. If we have got it wrong and if the arrangements are not working after that time, I will put up my hands and accept that. If people are still not convinced, we can then move FMQT to whatever time the Parliament thinks is best. However, we need to be honest and allow time for a serious trial. I ask the Parliament to support the recommendations in the Procedures Committee's reports.