Parliamentary Questions
We now move to the next item of business, which is motion S1M-1382, in the name of Mr Murray Tosh, on behalf of the Procedures Committee, on its report on parliamentary questions.
The intention underlying the Procedures Committee's 1st report 2000 is to ensure that the Parliament's system of written parliamentary questions is working appropriately. The committee believes that this report provides a firm basis for future work on our system of written questions. Its purpose is not to present final conclusions, but to suggest putting in place a monitoring structure to prepare the ground for future improvements.
The committee's starting point was to focus on two aspects of the way in which written parliamentary questions have developed in the short time since the start of the Parliament: how the Executive handles the increasing number of questions and whether the high volume of questions is overworking the system. To date, 11,339 questions have been lodged and 10,541 answers have been given. The large numbers of questions and answers will be of great interest to people in the wider community of Scotland, as well as to the members who asked them. Their processing occupies the time of very many people—members, ministers and officials—and it is important for us to get the process right in all aspects.
Members will have read the summary of recommendations that is set out on the first page of the report; therefore, instead of taking up time in setting those out in detail, I shall focus on a couple of key points. The main purpose of the proposed agreement between the Parliament and the Executive, which is set out in the report, is to assist all those whose job it is to facilitate the questioning process, to help to improve the speed with which questions are answered and to monitor the number of questions.
The committee is confident that all members support those aims. I am pleased that, in its published response to the committee's report, the Executive supports those aims and all the committee's detailed recommendations, and I pay tribute to the co-operative way in which the Executive has worked with the committee in this area.
Before we are able fully to understand how the system is working in practice, to draw conclusions and suggest improvements where they are necessary, we need to conduct an appropriate analysis with the Executive. It is that analysis that the committee's preliminary report is principally intended to facilitate. The study will include analysis of information concerning the number of questions that are lodged and the speed with which the Executive answers those questions, initially over the period to March 2001. The intention is that the results of the analysis will be set out regularly in the weekly answers report for all members to see.
The committee has committed itself to considering, in March 2001, what conclusions may be drawn from those accumulated statistics and to make a further report and recommendations to the Parliament if it sees fit. Before it does so, it will invite evidence from all those who have an interest in the matter. The committee will then consider a number of associated issues in relation to written and oral questions: for example, the length of question time; inspired questions; what are known in the House of Commons as prior notice questions; and other issues that are highlighted in the report.
Members will be aware that the proposed agreement also recommends several other measures. For example, a seminar is being organised for MSPs' researchers, which is designed to raise awareness among researchers of all sources of information that are available to members. Members' initial response to the proposal of such a seminar has been strong. A further important point is that the internal departmental telephone directories of the Executive will be made available to members, to promote direct access between members and Executive officials in circumstances in which members are simply seeking information. We hope that those measures will highlight the wide variety of sources of information that are available to members, and that that may ease the pressure on the formal questioning system.
The Procedures Committee believes that this report is an important stage in the process of ensuring that the system of parliamentary questions that we operate measures up to the highest standards.
I move,
That the Parliament notes and agrees to the recommendations contained in the 1st Report 2000 of the Procedures Committee Preliminary Report into the Volume of Written Parliamentary Questions and the Scottish Executive's Speed of Response (SP paper 169), as set out on pages 1 and 2 of the Report and reproduced below—
(a) to agree the terms of the proposed agreement between the Parliament and the Executive (as detailed on page 1 of the Report);
(b) that a continuing seminar on the resources for obtaining information and the appropriate use of parliamentary questions, and involving members, the Scottish Executive and Parliamentary officials, be organised by the Parliamentary authorities to assist those involved in the drafting of parliamentary questions, primarily members' researchers and assistants;
(c) that internal departmental telephone directories of the Scottish Executive be made available to all MSPs; and
(d) that to facilitate the tracking of parliamentary questions and the answers submitted, the Parliamentary authorities should investigate now the feasibility of placing the date on which questions are lodged in the relevant Parliamentary publications.
I acknowledge the work that has been undertaken by the convener and members of the Procedures Committee in producing such a concise and well-balanced report, which has been presented to the Parliament this morning by Murray Tosh. The Executive welcomes the committee's keen interest in the Executive's handling and treatment of parliamentary questions. It responded to the Procedures Committee on 1 November, broadly endorsing the recommendations that are contained in its report.
No one disputes the right of members to ask questions of the Executive, but that must be viewed in the context of what is both reasonable and appropriate. The Executive welcomes the committee's recognition that the monthly average of parliamentary questions that are lodged is very high. Indeed, since the committee produced its report, there has been no significant reduction in the volume of those questions. The Executive is now dealing with around six times more questions than would have been asked of Scottish ministers prior to devolution, and our latest audit of parliamentary questions, which was published on 1 November, shows that, despite that large increase, the percentage of questions that are answered on time rose from 48 per cent in the period that was covered by the previous audit to 54 per cent in the current audit. The Executive therefore welcomes the committee's recommendation of the importance of members both taking responsibility for the quality, quantity and relevance of the questions that they lodge and taking into account the availability of other sources of information. I welcome the points that Murray Tosh has just made in that context.
We endorse the committee's view that the Parliament must ensure that the risk of abuse of the parliamentary questions system is avoided and that all appropriate methods of obtaining information are utilised properly. The Executive supports the objectives set out in the proposed agreement, namely,
"to assist everyone responsible for parliamentary questions to match resources to demand in answering questions that are lodged; to seek demonstrable improvements in the turnaround time for answering questions; and to monitor the number of questions that are lodged".
Although we do not deny that the large volume of questions has stretched our resources, we have taken—and are taking—steps to improve the position. In particular, we have increased staffing levels within the parliamentary branch and have introduced new monitoring arrangements. Furthermore, we are in the final stages of developing a new electronic system which we expect will prove to be a useful management tool.
I am very grateful to the minister for giving way, although I am a little suspicious of the type of electronic tagging that he has just outlined.
I briefly draw the minister's attention to the sorry story of written question 2072, which was lodged by Richard Lochhead last October. However, although the reply was drafted in the rural affairs department and signed off by me as minister last November, it did not percolate through the Scottish Executive and Parliament system until 26 September this year. I hope that those procedures have been slightly improved.
Mr Home Robertson makes my previous point for me. The electronic tracking system—which I can assure him has no evil intent—is designed to ensure that such situations will not arise and that the current system will be greatly improved.
The Executive is happy to work constructively with the parliamentary authorities. As Murray Tosh has mentioned, at its meeting on 21 November, the Procedures Committee approved a paper setting out issues to be followed up in its forward work programme. I am pleased to say that officials from both sides have met to discuss how best to progress these matters.
I am pleased to note that there has already been progress on the recommendations set out in paragraph (d) of today's motion. In its response, the Executive has proposed that the date of the holding reply should be shown instead of the date of lodging and I understand that the Procedures Committee took a similar view at its meeting on 21 November.
The Executive looks forward to participating in the proposed seminars and, with the Scottish Parliament information centre, we are currently developing ways in which the Executive's staff directory can best be made electronically available to MSPs.
Some other issues have been identified for further consideration, of which I might usefully mention the proposal to explore options for some limitation of questions during recess. Although we are not suggesting that questions during recess should be barred altogether, we think that, in the light of the high volume of questions during holiday periods, there is merit in considering whether and how they can be kept to more manageable levels at that time. Some changes to the standing orders might be necessary if agreement can be reached, and we therefore suggest that the committee consider the issue at an early date.
The Executive is happy to support the committee's recommendations contained in the report and particularly welcomes the recommendation that consensus between Parliament and the Executive is the proper way forward on this matter. As a result, the Executive stands ready to assist the Procedures Committee in its further consideration of those recommendations.
I want to make some points and observations on the report's recommendations. First, on the issue of the logging of dates, we have found that, by and large, the majority of questions are answered within 14 days and that the speed of answering questions is constantly increasing. However, some questions seem to hang around for a considerable time; for example, I lodged a question in May that has still not been answered. Logging the dates of lodging will help to track questions and the mere fact that the dates will be published from time to time—in other words, naming and shaming—will have a great effect on the longevity of some questions.
As for the quality of answers and the quantity of questions, many members have found the quality of some answers—or their lack of quality—has brought more questions. Any work undertaken in that area should shorten the list of questions and the system can only reap the benefits. The quality of the questions may be questionable, but that is for members to regulate, not the Executive.
I am not convinced by the argument that limiting questions during the recess would be an advantage. The world still turns and life goes on during the recess. However, if there is a structural problem because staff need to take holidays—we should remember that members are not on holiday just because no debates take place, therefore they still need resources—members should recognise that and hold back on questions that could be answered later when the full complement of staff is available. Members should ask questions on current issues. That is for members, rather than the Executive, to regulate.
Should members regulate the number of questions? We need to be careful on that issue. The number of questions depends on the subject matter and range of topics that members are working on—members work in a number of areas. There is a mechanism for self-regulation. The law of averages is that some people will ask a lot of questions and that others will ask few. It is up to members to regulate themselves by not asking spurious questions for the sake of it.
Lastly, there are parliamentary questions on subject areas that do not fall within ministerial responsibilities. If ministers sit on joint ministerial committees on the Parliament's behalf, they should respond to questions from the Parliament. If they cannot stand the heat in the kitchen, they should get out of the Mondeo.
As a member of the committee, I support Murray Tosh's proposal, which is a good, if only a first, step forward. It is not in the interests of any of us that a whole lot of unnecessary questions clog up the system. The steps proposed in the motion will help a bit, as will the seminar. However, there are a number of points that I want to raise.
First, if someone raises with a member an issue that the member does not know much about, but which seems good, it is hard to find out whether anyone else has lodged questions on the same subject, especially if the issue does not fall neatly within the remit of a particular department. A system to make it easier to find questions by subject matter would be helpful.
Secondly, some members ask an awful lot of questions. To them, it is their daily fix—they must have their three or four questions a day. For me it is coffee and my wife is trying to get me to reduce my coffee drinking, so I feel sympathy with them in asking them to reduce their question asking, but it could be done—some members go a bit overboard. As Gil Paterson said, however, members often get enraged by totally evasive, often not even accurate answers to their questions and so lodge 10 more questions. Many civil servants are good, but many of them need to be trained. They still consider our presence as an intrusion into the pleasant life that they had before devolution. We need to explain gently to those civil servants what we are all about. Seminars to promote friendly discussion between civil servants and back benchers would be helpful, as would advising our researchers. If we can work together, we will get on much better. If there is acrimony on both sides—I am sure that civil servants complain about us over coffee just as we do about them—we will not work together better.
The proposals are a good step forward. The Procedures Committee under Murray Tosh works well, although some of my more radical proposals get a bit lost somewhere—in the Parliamentary Bureau, I think. I look forward to more progress. The proposals today are a useful first step.
I thank members who have contributed to this short debate.
In its "1st Report 1999: Draft Standing Orders of the Scottish Parliament", the Procedures Committee set out its view that it was of key importance for the Parliament to achieve the highest-quality procedure possible for facilitating the flow of parliamentary questions and answers.
The fact that we have had this debate today indicates the continuing high importance that the committee and members attach to the issue. The committee believes that it is important to examine all aspects of the structure of parliamentary questions continually and that whatever improvements that the Parliament thinks necessary should be made without delay. I assure the chamber that the committee will maintain that issue as a firm and continuing priority in its work plan. We hope that the report will assist members in the process by providing for a rigorous analysis of the system that is at present in operation. The committee looks forward to returning to the Parliament with further recommendations on this issue next year.
Tavish Scott mentioned, on behalf of the Executive, the proposal for an electronic tracking system. That will be welcomed and I hope that it will alleviate problems such as those experienced by Richard Lochhead and other members. Naming and shaming, which Gil Paterson talked about in relation to ministers' response times, must apply to members as well, in relation to the issue of self- regulation. The committee feels strongly that members must self-regulate. It is difficult to make hard and fast rules about that, but we must all bear some of the responsibility.
On the subject of self-regulation, does Janis Hughes agree that, in the interests of transparency, it might be useful for the Executive to indicate which parliamentary questions have been planted? Perhaps those answers could be segregated in a separate part of the business bulletin or, in the same way that questions that relate to a member's registered interest have an "R" at the end of them, planted questions could have "SE".
I think that it is a legitimate practice to have what Richard Lochhead calls planted questions but which we prefer to call inspired questions. It is useful in that it reduces chamber time. If ministers want to make announcements or bring a matter to the attention of the Scottish Parliament, there is nothing wrong with having a question asked to elicit that information. Obviously, the SNP likes to play the game of deciding what is an inspired question and what has been thought up by members of the Labour party.
Although they provide us with much fun, I do not think that anyone is arguing that there is anything intrinsically wrong with inspired questions—although I know that inspiration strikes some members more often than it strikes others. While no one—not even Richard Lochhead—is suggesting that the practice will not go on, it is important to know which are inspired questions. It would be a legitimate point of information to inform members which questions are designed to allow ministers to make statements, which is one of the ways in which ministers get information into the public domain. That should be indicated in the list of questions.
I do not understand why Michael Russell thinks that that is important. It is quite obvious by the noises in the chamber during question time that members know when a minister is responding to an inspired question that was designed to allow the minister to make an announcement. There is no secret. The proposal that Mike Russell and Richard Lochhead have made is unnecessary and would be a needless use of resources.
It would be a waste of asterisks.
The committee has discussed the issue of the quality of questions and how that affects the quality of answers. Members must be vigilant and ensure, before lodging their question, that it will give them the answer that they want.
With regard to Gil Paterson's earlier analogy, I am not sure how the Mondeo would get in the kitchen. Perhaps Gil Paterson's kitchen is bigger than mine.
Donald Gorrie's point about coffee and questions makes me wonder whether there is an addiction issue at work in this regard. Are certain people addicted to asking questions? That brings me back to the issue of self-regulation. [Interruption.] I will allow members to make up their minds about whether they have any addiction issues.
I commend the report to the Parliament.