| Parliamentary Reform (Changes to Standing Orders) |
| Wednesday, 06 June 2012 | |
|
I am pleased to open the debate on behalf of the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee. The motion in my name invites Parliament to note the committee’s report on “Parliamentary Reform—Standing Order rule changes” and to agree the changes to standing orders set out in annex B to the report. The changes to standing orders that we are debating follow the inquiry that the committee conducted into how Parliament can reform the way in which it conducts its business. Before I get into the details of the issue, I will explain briefly how we arrived at this point. At the early meetings of the committee following the 2011 election, we discussed the idea of an inquiry into parliamentary reform. We were aware that voices within and outwith the Parliament had commented on how the Parliament could be more responsive to emerging and topical issues. Senior figures with significant experience of how this Parliament operates, including Henry McLeish, George Reid, Lord Steel, Lord McConnell, Bruce Crawford and the Presiding Officer—Tricia Marwick—all contributed to the debate. Some of those individuals were kind enough to share their ideas with us at our business planning meeting last summer and in our subsequent inquiry. The Scottish Parliament is now 13 years old and has achieved much that is in line with its founding principles of sharing power, accountability, access and participation, and the inquiry confirmed that. For example, evidence to the committee from Scottish Environment LINK suggested that the Parliament has “built an admirable legislative ethos and practice, consulting widely, building expertise and avoiding its committees being turned into servants of the executive”. However, we took the view that the Parliament could not continue to be successful and evolve if it was not willing to look at itself with a critical eye. We believed that this parliamentary session was an opportune time to review whether existing parliamentary practices are serving their intended purpose. In August last year, the committee received a letter from the Presiding Officer that prompted us to think, in particular, about changes to sitting patterns and the reform of parliamentary questions. Momentum for change had also come from the Conveners Group, which had begun its programme for change in relation to the Parliament’s committees. The Conveners Group has, for example, supported more focused and objective-based remits for committee inquiries in order to lead to increased quality of scrutiny and greater impact. After due consideration, we launched our inquiry in September last year, with a tight deadline of completion by Christmas. Our objective was to conduct an inquiry that could provide a focal point for the parliamentary reform agenda. We wanted to explore on the record the different views on parliamentary reform and produce a clear set of recommendations for improving the way that Parliament operates. In order to help us to focus, the committee developed three priorities for the inquiry: first, improving effective scrutiny in plenary session, including through more spontaneous and topical business; secondly, maintaining levels of engagement with outside organisations and individuals following change; and, thirdly, enlivening debate to improve the public perception of the Parliament and increase media interest. Margo MacDonald (Lothian) (Ind): The member mentioned broadcasting, which is a very important element in all parliamentary activity because that is usually what connects us to the people. The broadcasters do not really think that we are worth broadcasting now. Does that not worry the committee? Dave Thompson: I think that we are well worth broadcasting. I sometimes think that the broadcasters should pay more attention to what goes on in our committees and in the chamber and not only to the fights that we have. There is very little coverage when there is consensus and we are pushing forward on very good issues and ideas in the Parliament. Broadcasters often do not pay as much attention to such matters as they perhaps should. The committee held a series of public evidence sessions to hear the views of those who had responded to the committee’s consultation or had otherwise contributed to the discussion on parliamentary reform. We heard from a range of witnesses, including back-bench members, business managers, representatives of civic Scotland, journalists and even a former First Minister and a former Presiding Officer. The committee took account of reports from previous Procedures Committees and of approaches taken elsewhere, including in the Irish Parliament and the House of Commons, both of which have recently reformed their systems. The committee is grateful to all the witnesses who took the time to give evidence to the inquiry, and to the helpful officials and parliamentarians of the Westminster and Irish Parliaments. The Christmas deadline gave us a tight timescale, and I am grateful to my fellow committee members and the clerking team for their hard work in successfully meeting that deadline with only days to spare. On 21 December, the committee published its report on parliamentary reform, which set out a series of 17 recommendations to improve—as we saw it—the Scottish Parliament’s topicality and responsiveness to events. Following publication, the committee wrote to the Presiding Officer, the Parliamentary Bureau and the party business managers, highlighting the various recommendations that related to each of them and seeking a formal response to gauge the level of support for the recommendations. In all of its deliberations, the committee has been mindful of the need to produce a report that does not gather dust on a shelf but instead forms the basis for real change to how the Parliament operates. To do that, we had to get wide agreement. I am heartened by the fact that many of the committee’s recommendations have received the support of the Parliamentary Bureau, particularly the committee’s key recommendations for new sitting patterns and a new topical question time. Following the Parliamentary Bureau’s response, the committee published a short report last month that set out changes to standing orders to give effect to those measures. I shall highlight the key proposed changes. The first, and perhaps most significant, proposed change is that Parliament would meet on three afternoons a week—on Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays. Committees would meet in the morning of those days. That is important because, at the moment, if something significant happens in Scotland on a Thursday night, the first chance that the whole Parliament has to deal with it is on a Wednesday afternoon. I believe that that needs to change. Moving to a sitting pattern in which committees meet in the morning and chamber business takes place in the afternoon, with the first parliamentary question time of the week on Tuesday afternoon, would improve the Parliament’s ability to be the first forum for debating emerging issues of importance to the people of Scotland. |
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|