Standing Orders (Changes)

– in the Scottish Parliament at 4:15 pm on 3 September 2003.

Alert me about debates like this

Photo of Murray Tosh Murray Tosh Conservative 4:15, 3 September 2003

The next item of business is a debate on motion S2M-286, in the name of Iain Smith, on the Procedures Committee's report on First Minister's question time and minor changes to standing orders. There are two amendments to the motion.

Photo of Dennis Canavan Dennis Canavan Independent

On a point of order. It would help to inform the debate if the Presiding Officer could let us know how the person in the chair intends to interpret standing order 3.1.3 in respect of First Minister's question time. In its report, the Procedures Committee has failed to address one of the major complaints about First Minister's question time—that questions 1, 2 and now 3 are reserved for party leaders, which takes up a disproportionate amount of time and leaves little time for back-bench members. That runs contrary to standing order 3.1.3, which requires the Presiding Officer to take account of "all members equally". It would be helpful if you could indicate to us, before the debate, how the Presiding Officer intends to apply standing order 3.1.3 so that all members have an equal opportunity to question the First Minister.

Photo of Murray Tosh Murray Tosh Conservative

At this stage, I do not intend to add to previous rulings on the matter. If Mr Canavan wishes to expand on his point, I suggest that he attempts to speak in the debate, which will be short. I call Iain Smith to speak on behalf of the Procedures Committee.

Photo of Iain Smith Iain Smith Liberal Democrat 4:27, 3 September 2003

I am pleased that my worthy predecessor as convener of the Procedures Committee is presiding over this debate. You will perhaps advise me, Mr Tosh, on how to ensure that amendments are not lodged to Procedures Committee motions in future. I welcome Mr Canavan's contribution to the debate.

The remit of the Procedures Committee is to report on the practice and procedures of the Scottish Parliament in relation to its business. The committee also has sole responsibility for proposing changes to the standing orders of the Parliament, which can be amended only on a motion from the Procedures Committee. As convener of that committee, my aim is to ensure that we discharge our remit in a way that ensures that the Scottish Parliament continues to learn and develop from experience. We want a Scottish Parliament that will operate in line with the founding principles of accessibility, openness, responsiveness, accountability and participation, and where every member can participate fully and fairly. The first report of the Procedures Committee this session is therefore primarily about ensuring that every member of the Scottish Parliament can participate fully and fairly in oral questions to the First Minister.

It is interesting to note that, in the previous session, the first report of the Procedures Committee of which you were convener, Presiding Officer, was also on First Minister's questions. When the Parliament was established in 1999, there were no specific First Minister's questions. They were introduced following the recommendations of the Procedures Committee and quickly became the highlight of the parliamentary week.

It is also worth noting—this point will be particularly important to Mr Canavan—that, when First Minister's question time was established, it was not specified that the leaders of the two main Opposition parties would, as of right, be granted the first two questions. That remains the position in standing orders. It is not for the Procedures Committee to determine how standing orders are interpreted and how the Presiding Officer selects questions. Standing orders specify that questions for First Minister's question time are selected by the Presiding Officer from the admissible questions submitted. It has been entirely at the Presiding Officer's discretion that the questions from party leaders are selected as questions 1 and 2.

Photo of Dennis Canavan Dennis Canavan Independent

Will the member confirm that nothing in standing orders says that the leader of the Scottish National Party must always get question 1 and that the leader of the Tories must always get question 2? Question 3 is, I presume, now to be split between the leader of the Scottish Socialist Party and the Scottish Green Party. Nothing in standing orders says that. It is nonsense.

Photo of Iain Smith Iain Smith Liberal Democrat

If Mr Canavan was listening, he would know that that is what I just said. He is absolutely right—nothing in standing orders specifies that. The selection is at the discretion of the Presiding Officer and the Procedures Committee has no intention at this stage to propose any change to the Presiding Officer's discretionary power.

After the results of this year's elections were known, however, it became apparent that there were implications for the business of the Scottish Parliament. Following a request from the Presiding Officer, in response to a request from the First Minister, the Procedures Committee agreed that First Minister's question time required urgent attention.

I believe that there was general agreement that, if the Presiding Officer was to be able to continue to use his discretion in a way that would be fair to all members of the Parliament—whether they be party leaders or back benchers—an extension of the time available for First Minister's question time was required. However, it was also recognised that any increase would have knock-on implications for other business in the Parliament.

Prior to the summer recess, the committee conducted a brief consultation to establish the extent of support for an extension of First Minister's question time to 30 minutes and to determine whether there was agreement that First Minister's question time could be held at a time other than immediately following question time, as is currently specified in the standing orders. The consultation was extended to the broadcast and written media, whose role in reporting the Parliament is significant.

We received a total of 87 responses, 94 per cent of which supported increasing First Minister's question time to 30 minutes, although one or two respondents suggested an increase to 40 minutes. There was clear support for the decoupling of First Minister's question time from question time, but a less clear view was expressed about when First Minister's question time should take place—whether at 12 noon on a Thursday, 2 pm on the same day or at another time.

The committee recognised the practical issues that would arise as a result of a shift to 12 noon, including the issuing of tickets for the public gallery and the problems that could arise for the BBC's live broadcasts. However, advantages were also recognised, including those for school parties, some newspapers and lunchtime news broadcasts. The overall balance of parliamentary business was also a factor, given the need to ensure that the time for each debate is adequate. The committee decided by a majority that, on balance, it preferred the 12 noon option to the

2 pm one.

The matter is ultimately not one for the Procedures Committee, however; it is for the Parliament to determine the timing of parliamentary business on a motion of the Parliamentary Bureau. I urge the Parliament today not to close off its options by voting for Jamie McGrigor's amendment.

A suggestion was made that the audience for First Minister's question time might be smaller in the earlier slot than it is in its current slot. The BBC used the figures for its "The Daily Politics" show, which is broadcast in the lunchtime slot, as an example. Frankly, I do not think that you can compare the two—every time that I see Andrew Neil's face on the television, I immediately switch off. I am sure that others do, too.

I also ask the Parliament to reject Tommy Sheridan's amendment. We need to ensure that the Parliament achieves a balance in its overall business. If we were to agree to Tommy Sheridan's amendment, one sixth of the Parliament's entire time would be taken up by question time. That would result in less time for holding the Executive to account in debates; it would result in less time for proper scrutiny of legislation, Opposition business and back-bench and minority party speeches. We must not reduce time for those important ways of holding the Executive to account.

The Procedures Committee has now embarked on a wider inquiry into question time. We hope to report on that by Christmas. We need to know members' views on how First Minister's question time and question time operate. I also hope that members will make suggestions for improvement and that they will submit their views as soon as possible.

The committee's report also proposes a number of minor and consequential amendments to the standing orders. Those are tidying-up amendments that aim to ensure consistency of language and to remove anomalies and redundant clauses, some of which were relevant only in the first session of the Parliament. If agreed, the changes will be incorporated into a new edition of the standing orders, which will be published shortly. I commend to the chamber the proposed changes to the standing orders that are contained in the report.

I move,

That the Parliament agrees to make the changes to the standing orders set out in Annex A to the Procedures Committee's 1st Report, 2003 (Session 2), First Minister's Question Time and minor standing order changes (SP Paper 9) and that those changes to the standing orders should come into force on 4 September 2003.

Photo of Jamie McGrigor Jamie McGrigor Conservative 4:33, 3 September 2003

The Conservative and Unionist Party welcomes an extension to First Minister's question time. We believe that question times are the most effective way of holding ministers to account. We are surprised therefore that the First Minister is pushing for a 12 noon slot, as that would halve the audience figures that are normally achieved when questions to the First Minister are carried on the "Holyrood Live" programme.

One of the founding principles of the Parliament is transparency; another is easy access by the public to the Parliament. We can fit only 400 people into the public gallery, but 63,000 watch our proceedings on television. Televised broadcasts are the way in which the Parliament extends its activities into homes all over Scotland. Is that not what we want? Do we really want to see a possible drop in our audience of 30,000?

I am not suggesting that the Parliament should be bossed around by the BBC, but neither should it be bossed around by the First Minister. Apparently, the First Minister thinks that the audience would follow him to an earlier slot. Far be it from me to suggest that he is being big-headed about the matter; he is a handsome and eloquent man, but he is neither Robbie Williams nor Johnny Depp.

The First Minister might believe that the 12 o'clock slot will allow him to grandstand over the lunchtime news and set the press agenda for the rest of the day. However, if the change goes ahead, he will upset and inconvenience thousands of Scottish people who regularly watch the Parliament on television in the afternoon. Perhaps Labour wants to argue with the BBC, because that seems to be its stock in trade at the moment. The BBC's advice is sensible and we should take it.

The minister, Patricia Ferguson, says that the proposed changes would bring an open, accessible and transparent Parliament. However, that will not happen if we decide to have a 12 o'clock slot for First Minister's question time. Here are the facts. Viewing patterns for political programming show that afternoon programmes have higher audience figures than those in the morning. Furthermore, since the beginning of the year, the average audience for First Minister's question time in its current slot has been 63,000, whereas "The Daily Politics", in its 12 noon to 12.30 slot, has attracted only 32,000 viewers.

A 12 o'clock slot would also mean less time for Opposition parties to scrutinise thoroughly the political developments of the day. Such a reduction in scrutiny can result only in a reduction in the ability to check the Executive and thus a reduction in the chamber's democratic processes. Surely there is too much apathy towards politicians at the moment to allow us to shut the door on 30,000 people who are interested enough to turn on their television sets to watch us.

The Executive says that a 12 o'clock start would benefit schoolchildren. That, too, is nonsense; most schools say that a 2 o'clock start would be just as good.

Parliamentary question times give back-bench members the chance to challenge ministers on topical issues. People find that very interesting. The Conservatives would like time to be made for an additional ministerial question time, to which the previous Procedures Committee's excellent report alluded. A rotational ministers' question time would greatly enhance our parliamentary week.

We believe that, to raise the Parliament's profile, First Minister's question time should be held at a time when viewing figures are high. We fundamentally disagree with paragraph 46 of the Procedures Committee's report, especially as the original draft recommended a 2 o'clock start. I find it somewhat peculiar that the current committee convener would not support the recommendations in the original draft, which he must have helped to compile. Is this the beginning of the new coalition politics? When Jack shouts "Jump!" do the Liberals ask "How high?" I hope that the convener will see common sense and agree to a First Minister's question time that is as convenient as possible for the Scottish people and is not just designed for the First Minister's convenience.

I move amendment S2M-286.1, to insert at end:

"but disagrees with the recommendation in paragraph 46 of the report that First Minister's Question Time should start at 12 noon and instead recommends that First Minister's Question Time starts around 2 pm."

Photo of Tommy Sheridan Tommy Sheridan SSP 4:38, 3 September 2003

The starting point behind my amendment is the determination in standing orders that any party in the chamber with five or more members is formally recognised as a party. There were four such parties in the first parliamentary session; the people of Scotland have since determined that there should be six such parties. Standing orders have to be changed to reflect fully that changed political complexion.

We argue that First Minister's question time should be lengthened from 20 to 40 minutes, ending at 3.50 pm, to allow the four political parties that are not in government to question the First Minister weekly. As those parties were elected to the Parliament by their respective constituencies, they should have the right to question the First Minister on their particular agendas.

Photo of Iain Smith Iain Smith Liberal Democrat

Does the member recognise that it is also the right of every other member in the Parliament to address questions to the First Minister and other ministers?

Photo of Tommy Sheridan Tommy Sheridan SSP

Absolutely. Indeed, our amendment recommends that First Minister's question time should be extended from 20 to 40 minutes—not 30 minutes—in order to create the extra time for other back benchers to question the First Minister. That change would not create insurmountable problems for the Parliament. Instead, decision time on a Thursday would take place at 5.30 pm instead of at 5 pm and the members' business debate would take place from 5.30 pm to 6 pm. Is it too much to ask that we manoeuvre our standing orders to allow that extra time for accountability, particularly in relation to the new political parties and back benchers?

The amendment has another key aspect. A point that has not been raised so far is that, if we move First Minister's question time to 12 noon, the smaller parties and the Opposition parties will have less time for their allocated debating slots. The Scottish Socialist Party gets three debating slots in every parliamentary session. If we move First Minister's question time to 12 noon, 30 minutes will be taken off each of those slots and 90 minutes will be taken from our ability to debate issues in Parliament. That is unacceptable. The Procedures Committee's proposal would cut into the time for the Opposition parties not only to question members and ministers but, crucially, to raise and promote debates on substantive issues. I appeal to members to support my amendment in the interests of greater accountability and to recognise the changed political complexion of the chamber.

I move amendment S2M-286.2, to insert at end:

"except that, in place of paragraph 1 of Annex A of the report, the Parliament agrees that in Rule 13.6.3 '40 minutes each week immediately following Question Time' be substituted for '20 minutes each week immediately following Question Time' and calls on the Procedures Committee to bring forward proposals so that Decision Time on Thursday normally begins at 5.30 pm."

Photo of Patricia Ferguson Patricia Ferguson Labour 4:41, 3 September 2003

The Executive welcomes and endorses the Procedures Committee's report on First Minister's question time. As other colleagues have said, the ability to question the First Minister plays a vital part in the accountability and accessibility of our Parliament.

Photo of Bruce Crawford Bruce Crawford Scottish National Party

The Procedures Committee's report states that the Executive is signed up to the idea of a trial period of changes to First Minister's question time and that the situation will be reviewed at the end of the year. Will the minister confirm that that is the case?

Photo of Patricia Ferguson Patricia Ferguson Labour

I will come to that later in my speech, although I can confirm to Mr Crawford now that that is the position.

First Minister's question time has worked well in the past, but it can be improved and we must not be complacent about it. We must always be alert to ways in which the Parliament's business processes can be improved, which is why we are discussing the matter today.

If agreed to by the Parliament today, the recommended changes to the duration and timing of First Minister's question time, which were suggested by the First Minister in a letter to the Presiding Officer in May, will allow greater scrutiny of Scottish Executive policy. Both the First Minister and the Presiding Officer are keen to ensure that, in the light of past experience, new arrangements should be in place as soon as possible at the start of this second session.

The Executive is pleased that the First Minister's suggestion to extend First Minister's question time from 20 minutes to 30 minutes has been recommended by the Procedures Committee. The First Minister is keen for more time to be made available to back benchers, which addresses Mr Canavan's point. The suggested changes would increase the opportunities for back benchers to ask questions and would enable a fairer balance in the allocation of questions and supplementaries.

Photo of Dennis Canavan Dennis Canavan Independent

Is the minister aware that, even at Westminster, which is far from perfect as a model for parliamentary democracy, even the most humble back-bench member of Parliament can ask the Prime Minister question number 1? Here, we have no chance of asking question number 1 and little chance of asking any other question. That is an absolute disgrace and an affront to democracy.

Photo of Patricia Ferguson Patricia Ferguson Labour

I am aware of that issue and I thank Mr Canavan for pointing it out to the chamber. I will refer to his point again before I close.

I also welcome the Procedures Committee's preferred option to move First Minister's question time to 12 noon on a Thursday. However, I confirm what Mr Crawford was trying to elicit from me earlier—we acknowledge that the Procedures Committee has recommended that the change should occur for a trial period, until perhaps the end of the year. The Scottish Executive welcomes that recommendation because the position might need to be reviewed to ensure that we get the fine tuning right.

As the First Minister makes his way around Scotland, he regularly receives representations from schools and teachers about the timetabling of First Minister's questions. The present 3.30 pm finish time is often too late for some school groups to remain in Edinburgh—they have to leave before the end of the session. The suggested timing will therefore make First Minister's question time more accessible to members of the public and to schoolchildren. The proposed timing should also give better lunchtime news coverage, which is an important factor in engaging the public in our proceedings.

The committee's report proposes a number of miscellaneous minor and technical changes to standing orders. The Executive is content with those recommendations, which have been proposed mainly to add further clarity to standing orders. We welcome the changes, which we believe will improve the overall democratic processes of the Parliament, and we acknowledge the Procedures Committee's consideration of all the individual issues under discussion today.

The Scottish Executive looks forward to working closely with the Procedures Committee as it develops the work that we have discussed today and conducts a wider and more general review of question time. At that stage, the committee may want to examine in more detail the points that Mr Canavan has raised today.

Photo of Bruce Crawford Bruce Crawford Scottish National Party 4:45, 3 September 2003

The Scottish National Party welcomes this debate on how Parliament goes about organising an important part of its business and we look forward to many more such debates in future. There will always be a continuing need for change and we must embrace that. Without change, we will never improve ways of operating Parliament; without change and improvement, we will stand still and stagnate.

We cannot allow ourselves to hesitate over pilots, experimentation or trial periods for how Parliament goes about its business. Sometimes we will find a change that works to our advantage. On other occasions, the change may produce a negative reaction. So what? The key thing is that we get it right and produce solutions that work both for us and for the Parliament. However, any changes must also work for those who are at the interface between the Parliament and the people—those who facilitate the successful working of this place. That includes the wider parliamentary authorities but, crucially, it also includes the media.

It will come as no surprise to members that the SNP, like 94 per cent of those who responded to the Procedures Committee's questionnaire, fully supports the extension of First Minister's question time from 20 to 30 minutes. Until I read the business bulletin this morning, I thought that that proposal had general support across all the parties. Unfortunately, there is also no consensus on when First Minister's question time should start. That is a finely balanced argument. Good points can be made for why a 12 noon start or a 2 pm start would be advantageous. As we have a trial period until the end of the year, we can assess the success or otherwise of the new starting time, so that makes the choice between noon and 2 pm even more academic. However, a choice will have to be made, because of the amendments before us today.

What are the balancing factors and the issues that are to be weighed up? On access and participation, we have heard the minister saying that the move to 12 noon will be seen as beneficial. Because there will be two question times on a Thursday, more groups of school pupils will be able to experience question time. Moreover, the earlier finishing time should avoid pupils having to leave halfway through question time. I am sure that we have all heard the rustling as pupils pick up their bags and leave to catch their buses. That is probably a good argument for changing to 12 o'clock.

Of course, as Jamie McGrigor said, the choice of start time will have the biggest impact on the broadcasting media. Some argue that the audience will follow First Minister's questions to noon, but the proof of the pudding will be in the eating. What we know for certain is that at least 20 minutes will be lost from Scottish Parliament broadcasting time on a Thursday. I understand that BBC coverage of First Minister's question time and other parliamentary business will cease at 12.30 with no prospect of an opt-out from the business programme "Working Lunch". That raises questions about time for analysis and consideration. Moreover, there is not much prospect of time being made available for question time later in the afternoon, because of understandable cost factors for the BBC. That makes 12 noon much less attractive and puts the balance of the argument in favour of a start around 2 pm.

Whatever we finally decide to do, a thorough analysis and examination of the trial period is essential. The final decision after the trial must not be taken lightly for reasons of perceived political advantage; it must be taken objectively on what is considered to be best for the Parliament.

Photo of Donald Gorrie Donald Gorrie Liberal Democrat 4:49, 3 September 2003

As a veteran of the previous Procedures Committee, I am glad that the issue has been tackled. There is clearly a consensus that we need more time to question the First Minister. The only argument is whether we go for 30 minutes or 40 minutes. Tommy Sheridan made a good argument, which we should consider in due course, if not today.

Some time is already wasted in First Minister's question time by the ludicrous pantomime of the first three questions asking, "Have you spoken to your auntie recently?" and the First Minister giving some banal reply. If we were to scrub that so that the party leaders could get stuck into their first question straight away, we would avoid a minute or two of complete rubbish.

The previous Procedures Committee stated that there should be

"changes to the Standing Orders to require Ministers to offer relevant and appropriate answers to oral questions."

That is an issue, although not particularly in relation to the First Minister, who is better than a lot of the other ministers. Another point is that some questions from the party leaders tend to be speeches rather than questions. It would be helpful if we could make things tighter and more relevant.

On the timing of First Minister's question time, good arguments are coming from all quarters. I marginally support the idea of having a trial of a 12 o'clock starting time. Nobody knows whether the viewers will follow the move. We do not know whether people like watching question time and will watch it at midday just as they currently watch it at 3 o'clock. We should have a trial along the lines that the committee, by a small margin, proposed.

I hope that we can examine the whole issue of questions and, as other members have said, brigade questions to a specific minister together. I also hope that this is the first of a number of reports through which the current Procedures Committee will build on the extensive work that was carried out by the previous committee, which was so ably convened by Murray Tosh.

Photo of Cathie Craigie Cathie Craigie Labour 4:51, 3 September 2003

My comments will be brief, as other members of the Procedures Committee have explained well to members how the committee's discussions have gone over the past few weeks. First Minister's question time is undoubtedly an opportunity for the Parliament to have a wide viewing audience. I do not share the pessimism shown by Jamie McGrigor, who thinks that the audiences will fall dramatically. I think that people will move with the slot.

In speaking on behalf of the committee, Iain Smith said that we must learn from the experience of working within our procedures and that we must develop them. We have a duty to improve our procedures. Many people want to come along and watch question time. The fact that we are separating First Minister's question time from ministerial question time means that two groups of people will have the opportunity to come to the Parliament to see what is happening. People often enjoy it much more when they come in for the relatively short period of question time rather than for a whole debate. The change must encourage wider participation in the Parliament and will increase the opportunities for people to see how we operate in Parliament—I have to say that we are sometimes not on our best behaviour.

I hope that Parliament accepts the Procedures Committee's recommendations. We state clearly in the report that we want the timing of First Minister's question time to be changed for a trial period. If we all work together—that includes back benchers—we might have a much better question time process six months down the road, whether that be questions to the First Minister or questions to other ministers. I ask Parliament to support the recommendations in the report.

Photo of Mike Rumbles Mike Rumbles Liberal Democrat 4:53, 3 September 2003

I have listened to the debate and was not impressed by Jamie McGrigor's comments. It is bizarre to suggest that we in the chamber should not inconvenience the BBC—as much as I like the BBC, I do not think that that is an argument with which we can proceed.

I do not agree with Tommy Sheridan's point. As much as I think we should grill the First Minister, I think that 30 minutes for that is sufficient and we do not need to spend 40 minutes on it.

The point that I want to make at this juncture is about the practicalities of how we organise First Minister's question time. What happened in the previous session of Parliament and has happened again in this session is that the first two questions come from the SNP and the Conservatives. I have no problem with that. However, the Presiding Officers seem to regard those questions as separate from the other four questions that are taken. Members should consider the example of First Minister's question time this week. There are two questions from the SNP and two questions from the Tories. That is wrong. The first question should come from the largest Opposition party, the second question should come from the next-largest party and so on. There should be more fairness in the way in which the Presiding Officers select the questions.

Photo of Patricia Ferguson Patricia Ferguson Labour 4:54, 3 September 2003

I will be brief. I say once again that I am grateful to the Procedures Committee for the work that it has put into the exercise. I look forward to co-operating with the committee in its further review of question time.

It is ironic that Jamie McGrigor argues against a temporary change that will be reviewed at the end of a wider review of question time. Members will not be fooled into tying ourselves down at this point to a change that would not achieve much for the Parliament.

Photo of Karen Gillon Karen Gillon Labour 4:55, 3 September 2003

I am not known for jumping to Jack McConnell's tune in the Parliament, so my initial reaction when I heard the proposals for First Minister's question time was to think that I would not be bounced into a decision by the First Minister, the Presiding Officer or anybody else. The argument in the committee was finely balanced and the committee took on board the views that were presented to it.

I might be accused of heresy, but I do not think that First Minister's question time is necessarily the best way in which to hold the Executive to account, although it is a way of doing so. Sometimes the weekly spat between party leaders does little or nothing to hold the Executive to account and nothing for the Parliament. Like Dennis Canavan, I am not convinced that the party leaders should always get the first three questions, but that is another debate for another time and the Procedures Committee will consider the issue.

We listened to the views that were expressed to us. Ninety-four per cent of the people who responded to the survey, which was sent to all members, agreed that 30 minutes, not 40 minutes, was the correct length of time. We must achieve a balance between the set piece of question time and holding the Executive to account in other ways, which is why I am not convinced that Tommy Sheridan's argument is correct.

I am interested in Jamie McGrigor's arguments. The committee's views are presented in its report, so it was wrong and inopportune for Jamie to bring to the chamber matters that were in a draft report. I hope that Jamie will reflect on the fact that his action betrayed the trust of the committee.

The BBC's view is important to the Parliament, but it is only one view. Other media outlets and people who are involved in broadcasting said that they would prefer a 12 o'clock slot. We must consider the issue and see how the trial works. If audience figures drop, we will have to revisit the issue. I am not convinced that to compare "The Daily Politics" with question time is to compare like with like. I think that, as John Swinney said in a letter to the committee, the audience will follow question time.

I urge members to reject the two amendments and to support the committee's proposals.