Plenary, 24 Feb 2005

Meeting date: Thursday, February 24, 2005

Official Report 804KB pdf

---

Standing Orders (Changes)

The next item of business is a debate on motion S2M-2418, in the name of Iain Smith, on behalf of the Procedures Committee, on a final review of oral questions and minor rule changes.

The motion that is before members invites the Parliament to note two recent reports by the Procedures Committee—one on oral questions and one on minor rule changes. The standing orders changes that we recommend are set out in annex A to each report. The proposed amendments in the minor rule changes report are consequential changes that arise from the committee's report on timescales and stages of bills, which was agreed by the Parliament on 11 November last year. Nothing more need be said about those proposals. Our report on the final review of oral questions is more substantial, therefore I shall concentrate my remarks this afternoon on it.

The Procedures Committee has published three reports on oral questions, on issues such as the duration and timing of First Minister's questions, and the timing and structure of questions to ministers. This final report—I assure the chamber that we mean "final"—aims to entrench some of the changes that were made on a trial basis as a result of the committee's previous work; it also contains some new recommendations.

Originally, we envisaged a short review at the end of last year but, in the event, the review took a little longer, mainly because it soon became clear that there was widespread feeling among back-bench members throughout the chamber that question time was not working as well as we had hoped it would when we recommended changes in our earlier reports. The committee's recommendations today relate to the timing and format of question time and to the selection of questions. Specifically, we propose a new way of selecting questions for question time, which we believe will help to ensure that questions are more relevant and topical. I will explain more about the new system in a moment.

My colleague Cathie Craigie, in summing up on behalf of the committee, will go into more detail on why we recommend no change to the timing of First Minister's questions, and why we propose to split general questions from themed questions, with general questions coming before First Minister's questions. All I will say at this point is that, in reaching that conclusion, the committee faced a difficult balancing job in addressing the many competing demands on the timing of question time, not least of which was the demand to ensure that there was a reasonable balance between parliamentary time for debates and parliamentary time for questions.

In reviewing First Minister's questions, the committee reached the conclusion that there was no case for changing the present format. However, in reaching that conclusion, we were concerned that one of our primary aims behind extending First Minister's questions—to allow more time for questions and supplementaries from back benchers—was not, in reality, being achieved. First Minister's questions are for all MSPs, not just party leaders and Opposition MSPs, and we must ensure that the time that is available to question the First Minister is allocated in a way that gives all MSPs a fair opportunity to raise matters of concern with the First Minister. Instead, what we have seen is that the questions from party leaders—and, for that matter, the answers from the First Minister—are getting longer. Frequently, as much as half of First Minister's question time is taken up with the first two questions and, frequently, less than 10 minutes are available for the last three questions.

A further concern is the extent to which leaders' questions deal with matters that are not the responsibility of the First Minister, Scottish ministers or Scottish law officers. In the report, we draw Parliament's attention to that fact, and to the fact that according to standing orders, questions and supplementaries should be brief and should relate to matters for which the First Minister, Scottish ministers or Scottish law officers have general responsibility. We will support the Presiding Officer in ensuring that those rules are enforced fully.

Throughout the review of questions, members raised concerns about the uneven results that are produced by the present system for selecting questions to ministers. One of the issues that was raised most commonly by members was that their questions are rarely selected, and that when they are selected they are often so far down the list that they are unlikely to be called. We considered various ways of changing the current selection process for question time to increase the level of participation and to stimulate further interest in that key area of parliamentary business. We concluded that a form of random draw should be retained, because it offers the fairest and most transparent system of selection.

However, we propose moving to a system in which members' names rather than questions are selected. That system would have a number of advantages, the main one of which is that it would allow the selection of names to take place earlier, without the topicality of the questions being lost. We recommend that the draw of members' names take place two weeks in advance, so that selection is linked to the fortnightly cycle by which the parliamentary business motion is agreed. That would give members more notice of who had been selected to ask a question and would, I hope, assist members who were selected with their diary planning. In addition, members would not—as I am sure we all do—spend time each week preparing questions that do not get selected.

We recommend that questions continue to be lodged about a week in advance of when they are due to be answered. That would give members who are selected in the draw a week to decide what to ask, thus allowing them time to consider more deeply what sort of questions they might wish to ask in their slot. It would also continue to give the Executive time to prepare its answers to the questions.

We considered the situation whereby members are allowed to be included in the draws for general questions and the two sets of themed questions. We concluded that we should allow members to be selected to ask a question in only one session each week, rather than in three as happens at present. Members would be able to enter all three draws, but once they had been selected in one of them, they would not be allowed to be selected in any of the others. Members would contact the chamber desk to enter the draw for general questions and themed questions. If they were drawn for general questions, the draw for which would be held first, they would not be included in the draws for the two sets of themed questions. If they were drawn for the first set of themed questions, they would not be available to be drawn for the second set.

We ruled out enabling members to register an on-going interest in a draw—such as always wanting to be included in the draw for education questions—because we thought that it might result in a problem whereby members would keep their name in the draw but then withdraw their question because they were not available to ask it. We want there to be a clear presumption that once members are selected they will turn up and ask their question, so that we do not have the number of withdrawn questions that we have had recently. In turn, that would help the Presiding Officer to fix the number of members selected as close as possible to the number of questions that can usually be taken, so that fewer members will suffer the frustration of having a question near the bottom of the list that they are not called to ask.

We make no recommendations about changing the themes of questions. We think that themed questions are working reasonably well, but the Parliamentary Bureau and the parliamentary business managers might want to consider at some point in the future whether they wish to review the current themes for ministerial questions. We leave it to the bureau to consider that, perhaps around summer recess time.

We make a proposal to allow the Presiding Officer more flexibility to group questions at question time in order to achieve a better flow. The package that we suggest for oral questions will improve the effectiveness of that important element of parliamentary business. We acknowledge that there is a limit to what the Procedures Committee can do alone; it is up to members to make question time work and I hope that they will all do so.

I move,

That the Parliament (a) notes the Procedures Committee's 2nd Report, 2005 (Session 2), Final Review of Oral Questions (SP Paper 287) and agrees that the changes to standing orders set out in Annexe A to the report be made with effect from Friday 18 March 2005, but that the current Rules 13.6 and 13.7 continue to have effect for the purposes of any Question Time in the week beginning Monday 21 March 2005; and (b) notes the Committee's 1st Report, 2005 (Session 2), Minor Rule-changes (SP Paper 271) and agrees that the changes to standing orders set out in Annexe A to the report be made with effect from 18 March 2005.

This is not the first time that the Procedures Committee has advocated changes to question time and First Minister's question time. The decision was made to move First Minister's questions to 12 o'clock and extend it from 20 to 30 minutes and to extend oral questions, which are now themed, from 40 minutes to an hour. As someone who was not a member of the Procedures Committee when those recommendations were made, I cannot comment on the unanimity or otherwise of members on them. However, I think that it is fair to say that this time, although there was unanimity about the inadequacies of the present system, there was divergence of opinion among committee members—and members in general—about how to resolve those inadequacies, which resulted in a number of divisions on issues.

In the review, the first requirement was to determine the timing of First Minister's questions, but that could not be determined in isolation. The feeling came across that the splitting of First Minister's questions from oral questions had affected both events adversely. That is why I supported the element of Jamie McGrigor's suggestion, which the committee adopted, which advocated having general questions immediately preceding First Minister's questions. That change re-establishes the previous link between general questioning of ministers by members and First Minister's questions, albeit on a Thursday morning rather than afternoon.

However, neither I nor my colleague Tricia Marwick could support the other element of Jamie McGrigor's suggestion, which was to transfer the themed element of oral questions to a Wednesday, an idea that, frankly, commanded little support among MSPs. On a related point, quite how Mark Ballard, the Green member of the Procedures Committee, managed to square his support of the move to Wednesday with the other Green submission, which was to make question time later in the week in order to give members longer to consider it, I do not know. I suspect that he might address that issue when he speaks. Further, I could not have endorsed the Tory suggestion that would, in effect—within the time constraints with which we were faced—have handed over the bulk of the themed oral questions to Opposition spokespeople to the detriment of all back benchers in the Parliament.

The second suggestion, which came from the convener and achieved, after some discussion, the overwhelming support of the committee—and even some qualified support in the Scottish Socialist Party submission—was to replace the present system of selecting questions for oral question time with a system that involved the selection of members. That system will reduce the number of questions that are submitted every week and will eliminate the work that is conducted unnecessarily by members who are unsuccessful in the present ballot system.

The selection of members, which will take place two weeks before the questions are due to be asked, will be followed by the members who are successful in the new ballot submitting their questions one week before oral questions. No individual MSP will be permitted to ask more than one oral question in any one week, a move that we suggest will increase the number of members who are able to ask questions. Of course, it will be for members to decide on how many areas they wish to submit questions.

Part of the criticism of the existing arrangements is that, despite the fact that the questions are themed, a focus on particular issues is not allowed, which is largely due to the random nature of the ordering process. The committee considered and rejected giving the Presiding Officer the right to order questions, but recognised the need for greater focus on issues as they arise. That is why it was correct that the committee recommended that the Presiding Officer be given the ability to ask the author of a selected question that is similar to one that is already being considered to ask their question as a supplementary to the question that is higher in order on the list.

I trust that this will be the last time for a while that this subject is visited, if only to give some of the committee's older hands—metaphorically speaking, of course—such as Cathie Craigie and Karen Gillon a bit of time away from the subject.

I hope that members will support the motion.

I call Murray Tosh. You have four minutes, Mr Tosh.

I apologise for the absence of my colleague Jamie McGrigor, which has been occasioned by a family bereavement. On behalf of the Conservative group, I thank the Procedures Committee for its work, its conclusions and its willingness to consider changing procedures in the interests of improving them.

Paragraph 66 of the report deals with recommendations on issues of timing. The Conservative view is that the half-hour First Minister's question time has worked reasonably well. If members will forgive me, I will not personally be drawn on the balance of time between party leaders and back benchers, but we take the view that the fact that First Minister's question time is led by the Opposition leaders is one reason why it attracts greater attention and appears to be a livelier experience than is sometimes the case with the themed and open question times.

We agree that the experiment—if we can still call it an experiment—should be continued. On balance, we would prefer an afternoon slot for First Minister's question time but we accept that there are arguments for and against that position and that it is a matter of judgment. Therefore, we will not pursue our disagreement on that detail to the point of voting against the committee's recommendations this afternoon.

We accept the proposal that the 20-minute general question time should be held immediately before First Minister's question time and that, therefore, the themed question time should be separated from the general question time.

We would prefer to experiment with themed questions on a Wednesday and we suggest that the perpetually empty press galleries, the lack of any media coverage for themed questions, and the relatively low rate of attendance and attempts to ask supplementaries in the chamber might be an argument for trying it on a different day, when greater attention might be paid to it. However, we recognise that the committee did not agree with that suggestion so we simply note it in passing as a point to which we might want to return. Given the other recommendations, it is logical that we should accept the earlier start on a Thursday morning to accommodate themed questions.

On the recommendations in paragraph 67 of the report, we agree with drawing members' names rather than questions. We hope that that change might reduce the increased incidence of withdrawn questions that we have seen in recent times. That is a regrettable circumstance where it is avoidable, I suspect that sometimes it has been avoidable. It is not just the member who is down to ask the question who is entitled to the question; other members have attended for the supplementary questions and they are often justifiably indignant when a question is withdrawn at short notice.

The second starred recommendation in paragraph 67—that members get only one question per session—might well increase participation and we therefore welcome it. There is also a suggestion that similar questions be brigaded. We acknowledge that that already happens informally and that it works reasonably well. However, building it into the rules will help to make it official.

Paragraph 70 notes that

"the Committee does not anticipate"

returning to the issue of oral questions during this parliamentary session. We understand and sympathise with that point of view, but we also note that the wording does not rule it out. Therefore, we leave down a marker that, in the event that we think that themed questions continue to struggle to attract the attention and participation of members that we would all like to see, we might well invite the Procedures Committee to consider the issue again during this parliamentary session. However, if the committee has judged the issue well and its recommendations are entirely successful, we will all be perfectly happy that the matter need not be raised again.

On behalf of the Liberal Democrats, I add our general support for the Procedures Committee's recommendations. However, we have several concerns and I have a feeling that we might need to return to the subject before we reach the end of the current parliamentary session.

As Iain Smith rightly pointed out, there was—and still is—a general feeling among MSPs that the current format for question time and First Minister's question time is not working as well as it could. The criticisms that I have and which I hear from my members concern two issues, both of which are to do with timing. Several colleagues believe that separating First Minister's questions from general questions to ministers has diminished both sessions, but especially the session of general questions to ministers; that session has probably suffered most, along with the themed questions.

There are also concerns about the movement of First Minister's questions to the lunch-time slot. The experiment has been running for almost 18 months, but a number of our members are not convinced that it is working well. One of the reasons for that view is that we have lost almost 30,000 "Holyrood" viewers. The restricted coverage that we get at 12 o'clock means that the programme cuts away after party leaders' questions, leaving back benchers with little or no coverage. It is important that all members in the Parliament get a chance for their questions to the First Minister to be heard by the rest of the country.

Those are the two main reasons why 71 per cent of MSPs who responded to the recent committee questionnaire opposed First Minister's question time continuing in the 12 o'clock slot. It is argued that the loss of television coverage is compensated for by regular coverage on both BBC and STV lunch-time news, but I remain to be convinced by that argument. We need as much coverage as possible of the Parliament in action—members debating issues, and questioning ministers and the First Minister on issues that are relevant to our constituents. Previous coverage on the "Holyrood" programme met those objectives much more effectively than do two soundbites on lunch-time news and the current limited "Holyrood" slot.

What other institution would lightly give up regular, in-depth coverage of it at work, when that coverage was watched regularly by an audience of 46,000 viewers every Thursday afternoon? As a result of the changes that we made and the move to the lunch-time slot, we lost nearly 30,000 viewers. I am not convinced by the argument that the extra coverage that we get in the lunch-time news bulletins—which is mainly of party leaders—is enough to compensate for that loss. I do not think that we realised just how successful the question time format that we had during the Parliament's first session was. We were convinced that we should have moved back to that format and the Conservatives supported that view in some of their submissions to the committee's inquiry.

I have reservations about the new method whereby individuals will be selected to ask questions, rather than the questions themselves being selected. I remain hopeful that the new system will work, but it will need some time to bed in. I am also concerned about the length of time that is allocated to the leaders of the two main Opposition parties at FMQs. On some occasions, the first questioner gets between eight and nine minutes. That cuts into time that should belong to the back-bench MSPs who ask questions 4, 5 and 6.

To sum up, the Liberal Democrats will support the Procedures Committee's proposals. Although I hope that they are a success, I remain to be convinced on the coverage argument, which we may well have to revisit before the 2007 election.

It is a pleasure to speak for Labour in this debate on the Procedures Committee's final review of oral questions. The process has been long and those members who suggest that we should revisit it before 2007 should acknowledge the blood, the sweat and the large amount of negotiation that have gone into finalising our recommendations and concluding our report with such a great deal of consensus.

The review was initiated to ensure that our parliamentary process for questioning the Executive was refreshed and renewed. It was appropriate for the review to take place so that we had the best possible system to use in the new session of Parliament. The initial shorter review was productive in developing a system whereby Executive question time could establish an identity of its own that was separate from that of First Minister's question time.

I believe that the introduction of themes has enabled closer scrutiny of the work of ministers and their departments. There is no doubt that the new format took time to bed in, but it has now done so and it is clear that it has created opportunities for more and different people and groups to watch question time in the chamber. I am talking not only about media coverage, to which Mr Lyon referred, but about visiting groups. The new format means that two different sets of visitors can come to the chamber—the first can watch First Minister's question time and the second can come along after lunch to watch questions to the Executive. That is an important factor.

I realise that BBC coverage is valuable and important, but the BBC is only one broadcaster of question times. The fact that other broadcasters provide lunch-time coverage offers the potential for the Parliament to reach a far bigger audience than the 40,000 that George Lyon mentioned. That consideration formed part of the debate that informed the committee's discussions and decisions. It is important to note that such a debate took place.

Whenever one introduces a new system, scope for it to be modified and improved becomes apparent. The committee anticipated that by introducing the system for a trial period. The committee's final report is the result not only of give and take between the parties to achieve some consensus, but of our having had the chance to assess how the new system could be improved.

I was always interested to find out how a system that meant that every member could have three questions would work. Our experience of occasions on which members have had three questions selected for answer one week and have then gone for a long time without getting any of their questions selected shows that there was need for change. The proposal in the report, which will mean that members will have only one question each, is far better. Another big improvement is that members will know that they have been selected to ask a question before they need to submit the question itself. That means that members will be able to focus on asking one question and will have more time to put into preparing it. I believe that that will result in better questions, improved scrutiny and a more rewarding process for members.

The move to hold general questions before First Minister's question time is important for those members who felt that the atmosphere of general questions would benefit from its being part of the build-up to FMQs, and that general questions would, in general, be a good way to move into FMQs.

I do not have time to highlight all the useful issues that are covered in the report, but I will flag up the concerns about the lack of time that is provided for back benchers at First Minister's questions, which is of great concern to a large number of members, particularly in the Executive parties. It is important to address that issue so that there is more equity of opportunity for all members to raise issues at that important forum. The report also supports the Presiding Officers as they take action in other areas, such as ensuring that questions concern areas in which ministers are competent to answer.

The debate follows a great deal of discussion of the report. I have no doubt that, as we have heard today, the issues will provoke even more discussion in the future, but I believe that the committee's proposals for the timing and format of our question times will bring improvements to those question times, help them to be more effective and address the wishes of members from all parties by ensuring that oral questions are not only a vital, but a productive, part of the business that the Parliament carries out.

I endorse the motion.

I welcome the opportunity to comment on the Procedures Committee's recent machinations. I thank the clerks for all their work in helping us to prepare the report; in particular, I thank them for their work on tables 11 and 12 in annex C, for which they had to count endless columns in the Official Report to analyse how question times run.

I concur with Richard Baker: the report is a good attempt to balance different party needs, the different media needs and the needs of those who view the Parliament from the public gallery and on television. Achievment of that balance was a difficult job. I had major concerns about the shift away from an afternoon First Minister's question time to a morning First Minister's question time. I still have some of those concerns, but many of my issues with the way in which we did it initially have been addressed by the way in which we are moving forward.

In particular, we must recognise the situation of those members who close a Thursday morning debate that leads immediately into First Minister's question time, as I did today. There is real difficulty with the lack of flexibility for them when the Presiding Officer is trying to begin First Minister's question time at 12 o'clock on the dot. The general question time that we will get before First Minister's question time will act as a good warm-up for it and will produce the break that we need to shift from a debate to First Minister's question time. I hope that that will do something to tackle the problems that I have encountered in trying to get public gallery tickets for visitors for a Thursday morning debate because they have all been booked up by people who turn up only at 12 o'clock for First Minister's question time. That situation means that we have an empty gallery from 9.30 am until 12 o'clock but no available tickets.

We have taken major steps to try to address some of the problems with the 12 o'clock First Minister's question time and have made proposals that balance its effectiveness with the different needs that are associated with it. We also had an opportunity to reconsider the themed questions that we introduced. I draw the Parliament's attention to table 9, which outlines the wide disparity between the most popular themes—health and community care; and enterprise, transport and lifelong learning, which also includes culture and sport issues—and the least popular themes, which are finance and communities. We must urge the Parliamentary Bureau to take the opportunity to examine those themes, as is suggested in paragraph 60 of the report, to determine whether we have the correct themes or whether we need to rebalance some of them. That would help to produce a better themed question time. In addition, I welcome the new proposals for the selection of members rather than questions, which will also go some way to improving the way in which the themed question time works.

I support the report. I support its balance. It does not give everybody what they would ideally want, but it is a fair reflection of the committee members' different positions.

I congratulate the Procedures Committee for taking on board and balancing the views of 129 MSPs and achieving some form of consensus, which must be regarded as quite a feat.

My preference was for a reversion to the grouping of general questions with First Minister's questions. As well as not being popular with respect to their timing and so on, themed questions are sometimes restrictive in relation to what questions may be asked. I have had difficulty on a number of occasions in trying to fit the question to the portfolio, rather than asking the question that is topical and necessary and relying on the Executive to select the appropriate minister to answer it. I suspect that some of the concerns that have been raised and some of the tweaking around that has been done with themed questions might be resolved through reverting to general questions, so that the following week members can ask the question that is most topical for them without needing to fit it into any particular category.

On the subject of media coverage, it is important that we say things in the chamber that people will want to listen to. We should discuss matters that will inspire people and attract the population. I am not always a great fan of the media but I suspect that it must sometimes be quite difficult to pick out highlights and put something on the news that is attractive to viewers. I am not sure that a continuous programme, moving from First Minister's questions to general questions in a big block, would offer the most exciting viewing that anybody had ever seen.

Like Murray Tosh, I think that we should keep our minds open and see what happens in the future. We have a duty to make this democracy, within the limited devolution that we have, work and appeal to the people. That is our responsibility. As the report says, tweaking the procedures will not necessarily achieve that. We will support the Procedures Committee's report, and we will keep an open mind. In the future, we might ask for some reconsideration.

I agree with Mark Ballard on the question of seating in the public gallery, although that is not really within the remit of the Procedures Committee. We have written to the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body on the matter. There needs to be a separation of bookings for the public gallery between debating time and question time—the public should be able to book for those specific times. I hope that then we might achieve greater attendance, as there might be people who want to turn up for an SSP debate, for example, but who do not necessarily want to hang around for question time. I am sure that members of other parties think the same. That would be a commonsense change, which could help everybody.

The Scottish Conservative group of MSPs are glad to support the motion to alter the procedures for oral questions. The motion does not go as far as Jamie McGrigor's preferred option, which included moving to a dual question time on Wednesday afternoons, but it offers a balance, or compromise, which may be reviewed in due course. The crux of the issue remains the fact that the purpose of the oral questioning of ministers is to hold the Government to account. The scrutiny of ministers should be meaningful and sustained; above all, the procedures for handling oral questions should provide for thorough, effective and transparent discourse.

In his proposals to the Procedures Committee, Jamie McGrigor stated:

"Since the changes to Question Time have been made, the general and thematic question sessions command far less attendance in the Chamber and do not seem to have the impact that they did when they were linked to First Minister's Questions."

It is for that reason we support the motion, which should boost the importance of general question time and allow the Scottish people greater insight.

Not all MSPs were told why these delightful little lights line the floor of the gangways near our seats. They are for emergency procedures in case smoke fills the Parliament, so that even the least observant MSP should be able to find the way out.

In considering our procedures, it is relevant to point to the bottles in the windows at the front of the debating chamber. Although the shapes look like bottles, they are meant to symbolise people in Scotland witnessing and looking into a transparent and accountable people's Parliament.

The First Minister has said that we must "raise our game" in the new chamber, and he is right. We must keep it in mind that we are not here for the convenience of ministers, but as the servants of the people. Ministers can and will be held to account in this chamber when that is necessary, and the best interests of the people must be allowed to prevail at all times. The wishes of the people on procedural matters should weigh most heavily with us. With that thought in mind, I am glad to support the motion.

It is always a pleasure to speak after Lord James Douglas-Hamilton. I am grateful for being told what the little blue lights are for—I thought that they were a design feature of the Parliament and did not realise that they have a practical purpose.

I welcome the opportunity to take part in the debate. The Procedures Committee is one of the Parliament's unsung committees, but what it does and discusses impacts on every member and on how business is discussed in the chamber.

No one pretends that every member will be satisfied with what has been proposed today—indeed, there are probably 129 different preferences with respect to the timing of FMQs and question time combinations. There is still concern about First Minister's question time being held at noon on Thursdays, but we need an opportunity to let it bed in a bit more before we take the step of putting it back into an afternoon slot.

The proposals that we are considering are more acceptable than all the other schemes that the Procedures Committee discussed. The proposals are that FMQs would be retained at 12 o'clock and, with the earlier start of 9.15 on Thursday mornings to take account of general questions beginning at 11.40, a block of almost 2.5 hours of debating time would be retained on Thursday mornings and Wednesday afternoons. That there is the capacity for us to have longer debates is absolutely critical.

I turn to the vexed question of the method of selecting questions. Like many members, I have been frustrated by the seemingly uneven selection of questions. Many of us no longer submit questions, as we believe that our questions will not be selected; even if they are, we believe that they will be so far down the list that they will not be reached anyway. I think that the lack of confidence in and the frustration with the system are the reason for the lack of attendance at question time. That is why I warmly welcome the move towards names being randomly selected, meaning that members would go away and submit a question only after their names had been randomly selected. There is nothing more frustrating than submitting well-considered questions and simply not getting them taken. Through what has been proposed, at least we will find out whether we will be number 1 or number 12. We can then decide whether submitting a question is worth while.

I share the concerns that many members have raised about the allocation of tickets to the public galleries. It is simply unacceptable that, after all this time, the Scottish Parliament Corporate Body cannot get its act together and produce a system of two-hour slots so that people are in the chamber on Thursday afternoons when we are debating, rather than tickets being retained for FMQs. That a decision has not been taken on that matter by now is unacceptable and I hope that members of the corporate body who hear the debate or read the Official Report of it will take on board members' views on that matter.

I am sure that this will not be the final word on question time timings or question time procedures. Of course, the Procedures Committee will react to members' concerns and I am sure that it will monitor how the new arrangements bed in. However, the arrangements are welcome for the moment and the Scottish National Party will support them at 5 o'clock.

I call Margaret Curran. Ms Curran, you have 10 minutes.

I will probably not take up the entire 10 minutes, which might be good news. I often work on the assumption that my finishing early is good news, but perhaps it is not—enough self-deprecation.

The Executive welcomes the Procedures Committee's report on the final review of oral questions, and I am happy to endorse it. I acknowledge the work that has been undertaken by the convener and members of the Procedures Committee in their careful consideration of all the issues that are under discussion this afternoon. It has been a tribute to the parliamentary process that members of different political persuasions have worked so constructively together. I also take the opportunity—as ever—to thank the clerks for their work, which made such an important contribution to the committee's considerations.

We have welcomed the opportunity to contribute during the various stages of the committee's inquiry into oral questions in the chamber since it began at the beginning of the parliamentary session. Having listened to members' comments, I believe that there may be an opportunity to comment again, and I would contribute to any debate on procedures with great enthusiasm. Nevertheless, it is important that we give these proposals time to bed down, so that any changes that are made work in the interests of the Parliament.

The Executive recognises the fact that question time is a vital part of the parliamentary process. Indeed, it is a significant parliamentary occasion that attracts considerable attention among the general public as well as among the media—it is important to acknowledge that. Lord James Douglas-Hamilton was right to emphasise the fact that it is central to the process of accountability to which the Executive attaches great importance, and it is very important to the whole democratic framework that ministers are held to account in such a public format.

I ask the minister to cast her mind back to when she was the Minister for Communities when, after giving a statement, she would have the opportunity to respond to a series of questions on broadly the same theme, which she would bat away effortlessly all round the chamber. I ask her to compare and contrast that to responding to themed questions, when she might have received one or two questions out of a general session. There was never really anything very sustained on her brief—or, for that matter, on the briefs of other ministers. Is there not an argument for having more focused questions, perhaps led by Opposition spokesmen, and allowing for a run of questions from all round the chamber on whatever the issues of the day are?

I accept that when the questioner is given an opportunity to be more focused and systematic and to argue on a theme, that leads to greater accountability. It is perhaps slightly easier not to answer questions if they are all on different subjects and posed at different times—not that any minister would attempt not to answer a question or duck a serious political issue, as I am sure Murray Tosh will happily acknowledge.

I am not sure, however, that the questioning should always be led by Opposition spokespeople. One of the main drivers behind the committee's thinking was the idea that back benchers should be given a proper opportunity to ask questions within the format. The accountability that the Parliament exercises can be just as stringent when it comes from back benchers as when it comes from Opposition spokespeople. It is not always the case that Opposition spokespeople put ministers under greater pressure or hold ministers to greater account because of the position that they hold; it is often the subject matter that leads to a sharper exchange. In my opinion, the more focused and linked the questions are, the more satisfactory the exchange is in terms of clarity and accountability.

I will move on to the recommendations in the report. I am pleased to say that the Executive endorses the committee's recommendation that First Minister's question time should continue to take place at 12 o'clock on Thursdays. In reaching that conclusion, the committee rightly took into account a wide range of factors, including—as members have mentioned—television coverage and accessibility to members of the public, especially schoolchildren. Since First Minister's question time was moved to 12 noon, more schoolchildren have been able to visit the Parliament and view a full meeting. That is also evidence of the fact that many members are involved with schools in their constituencies and ensure their access to the Parliament.

We agree that having 20 minutes of general questions in advance of First Minister's question time should help to create a sense of build-up to and atmosphere for First Minister's question time. Splitting general questions from themed question time will also give gallery visitors a greater choice of sessions to attend.

As members have pointed out, the committee considered holding the thematic element of question time on Wednesday afternoon. However, the committee's poll of MSPs showed little support for any form of oral questioning on a Wednesday afternoon, and we believe that the most appropriate slot for a themed question time is after lunch on Thursday.

The proposal for a slightly earlier start time of 9.15 am is acceptable, especially as we must protect time for parliamentary debate. In particular, Opposition parties have to have their time in the chamber. We also agree with the proposed start time of 2.15 pm on Thursday afternoon. We feel that such an approach still honours our commitment to family-friendly hours, which, given our modern Parliament and the new politics that we are committed to, is important to us. That said, I have some sympathy with members such as Fiona Hyslop who have a young family. I realise that it is a challenge to get here early in the morning, and I do not think that we should disabuse ourselves of our family-friendly commitments quite as easily as we might have done in the past. However, we feel that this proposal just manages to honour those commitments.

The poll of MSPs showed that a majority was in favour of retaining the current themes for questions. If the Parliamentary Bureau follows the committee's suggestion and undertakes a review, it might be appropriate to expand one of the themes to incorporate, for example, my own portfolio as Minister for Parliamentary Business. I would be happy to engage with the bureau on that matter to ensure that all Executive activities are properly held to account.

The new system of selecting members' names rather than questions will mean that the process of selection can take place earlier without prejudicing the topicality of questions. As the committee notes, that will benefit members and those who manage the system. Limiting members to one question a week seems fair and sensible and will, I hope, maximise the number of members who are able to take part in general and themed question time. That should reinvigorate the process which, as members throughout the chamber have acknowledged, appears to be something that needs to happen.

The committee's recommendation that the Presiding Officer should be able to link related questions also makes good business sense. It is worth emphasising that the onus is on individual members to have regard to their questions and ensure that they are clear and concise. Indeed, I pay tribute to the Deputy Presiding Officers and the Presiding Officer himself, who are always encouraging us to be clear and concise in our questions and answers. If members do that, we will have a better question time.

I also take this opportunity to emphasise that questions must relate to clear areas of responsibility on which the ministers and the First Minister can respond. Such an approach will lead to greater accountability. After all, the First Minister and ministers are here to answer for their areas of ministerial responsibility. We must ensure that that is the exercise's primary purpose and that it is reflected in any procedures that are introduced.

We agree with the proposed changes. However, we feel that, once the new arrangements take effect, there should be a period of stability. Of course, we should bear in mind Tricia Marwick's point that there is still an onus on the Procedures Committee to respond to any points that members might raise. The general atmosphere in the Parliament is that we need a period of stability and to settle into the new arrangements. I acknowledge the Procedures Committee's great energy in these matters and have no doubt that it is desperate to have another parliamentary debate. However, perhaps we could persuade it to hold off for a wee while. Indeed, I have heard that some of its members are thinking about not bringing this matter to the Parliament's attention again this session, but we will wait and see.

Ultimately, I endorse the committee's view that it is the responsibility of all members to ensure that the arrangements work well. The Executive will do its utmost to facilitate the committee's recommendations and we will play our part in ensuring that the Parliament's procedures work well. With these measures, I hope that the Scottish public will have faith—and, as Carolyn Leckie pointed out, a degree of interest—in what we do and that we will be properly held to account.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. In my speech, I might have suggested that the SPCB was not moving fast enough on the issue of ticketing for the public galleries. There has since been a whisper in my ear. I understand that, today, new ticketing arrangements have been announced for the public gallery.

That was a point of information, not a point of order.

On behalf of the Procedures Committee, I thank all the members and the clerking team—I sometimes wondered how they managed to make any sense of the different suggestions that came from committee members, but they did.

I mentioned previously in the chamber the competition that exists between the 129 MSPs for the ear of a Procedures Committee member. It seems that every member of the Parliament has an easy solution that will improve First Minister's and Scottish Executive question times, to make them much more interesting to members and the public.

We did not have the luxury of taking on board every suggestion from the 129 MSPs because we had to narrow them down into what could be contained in the pages of our report. However, our report demonstrates that the committee took all the issues that were raised very seriously. Judging by this afternoon's debate, there is a certain amount of consensus and I hope that the motion will be supported.

The convener of the Procedures Committee spoke about the improved mechanisms that will be introduced to deal with the selection of members' questions, and he left me to discuss points about the timing of First Minister's questions, which was perhaps the most contentious issue that we looked at during the inquiry. As members know, it was moved to 12 noon on Thursday in 2003. The move was controversial at that time and it has remained so throughout the debate for some.

Although the views of members and the press were split on the matter, the evidence clearly indicates that the public and school groups were in favour of the 12 noon slot. As members have recognised, having two separate chamber events involving oral questions—one before and one after lunch—gives more people the opportunity to watch our proceedings from the public gallery.

As some members suggested, it would have been wrong to take on board the view of just the media. We had to balance the public interest with the media coverage, and what we have proposed will ensure that we have public involvement in the viewing of question time. A majority of committee members supported the 12 noon slot for First Minister's question time.

Other timing issues, such as the implications for parliamentary debates on Thursday morning and afternoon, have been discussed by members this afternoon. The changes to the timing of questions that we have proposed will give us a warm-up session by moving Scottish Executive question time back to the slot before First Minister's questions. Many members, including my colleague Duncan McNeil, enjoyed the warm-up session before First Minister's question time when it originally occupied that slot on Thursday afternoon. I am sure that many members will again enjoy taking part in that warm-up session. However, throughout the debate, it has been clear that members did not want to see Scottish Executive question time simply as a warm-up slot. Everybody agrees that for Scottish Executive question time to flourish, it has to stand on its own two feet. I think that it can stand on its own two feet and that it can be interesting.

Murray Tosh suggested that ministers compared question time with ministerial statements. The Presiding Officers also have to play a part in the process by encouraging members to accept their suggestions to link questions together so that we take a thematic approach. That was suggested in the committee's report and I hope that the Presiding Officers will take it on board. I am sure that they will have the backing of members in that regard.

Having told her what to do, I now look for guidance from the Presiding Officer on the time that I have available for dealing with the many other issues that were raised in the debate.

I can give you another minute or two.

Thank you, Presiding Officer.

I have dealt with the timing issues, so let me touch on other concerns that members raised. My impression from George Lyon's speech is that his party has the most concerns about how question time will operate. I am sorry that Iain Smith will have a job in convincing the Liberal group that the proposed changes are right, but I am sure that committee members would be willing to support him in doing that. However, given the make-up of his group, it might be difficult to obtain a consensus. I have just noticed that George Lyon is in the seat behind me, so I may now be in trouble.

The debate has been very good. I think that we have consensus on the need to make the proposals work. We want them to work, but back-bench members cannot continually blame everybody else if question time is less interesting than it should be or if it has no atmosphere. This is our Parliament and we submit the questions, so members must come along and take part. I am sure that the new arrangements will work.

I was horrified to hear Murray Tosh and Carolyn Leckie ask us to keep an open mind on the issue. Our committee will always do that, but we said when we finally signed off the report that it would be the final "final report"—we even wanted that to be put on the front cover. I hope that members will give the new arrangements an opportunity to run until the end of the current parliamentary session. Of course we can always look to make improvements, but let us give the new arrangements a chance. That will give the Procedures Committee an opportunity to consider other issues that are important to members.