PROCEDURES COMMITTEE Tuesday 12 March 2002 (Morning) Session 1 £5.00 Parliamentary copyright. Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body 2002. Applications for reproduction should be made in writing to the Copyright Unit, Her Majesty‟s Stationery Office, St Clements House, 2-16 Colegate, Norwich NR3 1BQ Fax 01603 723000, which is administering the copyright on behalf of the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body. Produced and published in Scotland on behalf of the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body by The Stationery Office Ltd. Her Majesty‟s Stationery Office is independent of and separate from the company now trading as The Stationery Office Ltd, which is responsible for printing and publishing Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body publications. CONTENTS Tuesday 12 March 2002 Col. PARLIAMENTARY QUESTIONS ................................................................................................................ 1427 PROCEDURES COMMITTEE th 5 Meeting 2002, Session 1 CONVENER *Mr Murray Tosh (South of Scotland) (Con) DEPU TY CONVENER *Mr Kenneth Macintosh (Eastw ood) (Lab) COMMI TTEE MEMBERS *Susan Deacon (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab) *Donald Gorrie (Central Scotland) (LD) *Fiona Hyslop (Lothians) (SNP) *Mr Frank McAveety (Glasgow Shettleston) (Lab) *Mr Gil Paterson (Central Scotland) (SNP) *attended WITNESSES Patric ia Ferguson (Minister for Parliamentary Business) Derek Grieve (Scottish Executive Finance and Central Services Department)) Hugh Flinn (Scottish Parliament Directorate of Clerking and Reporting) Andrew McNaughton (Scottish Executive Parliamentary Liaison Unit) Euan Robson (Deputy Minister for Parliamentary Business) Janet Seaton (Scottish Parliament Research and Information Group) CLERK TO THE COMMITTE E John Patterson SENIOR ASSISTANT CLERK Mark Mac Pherson LOC ATION The Chamber 1427 12 MARCH 2002 1428 Scottish Parliament business directory was made available to MSPs, their assistants and parliamentary staff on the Parliament‟s intranet site. That has been Procedures Committee operational since 23 April last year and MSPs and their staff have been able to access the business Tuesday 12 March 2002 directory for urgently needed factual information that is not available from other sources. (Morning) Our analysis is based on the eight months‟ operation of the system and provides an [THE CONVENER opened the meeting at 09:32] assessment of how those arrangements have operated in practice. During the period of analysis, 112 inquiries were logged. Most of those—about Parliamentary Questions 69 per cent—were dealt with readily on the day on which they were logged. However, it took several The Convener (Mr Murray Tosh): We will start days to obtain the information and provide an the meeting. I am told that the Glasgow train is answer for some of the inquiries. The analysis running late. It is of course a weekday, so that is provides a detailed breakdown of those inquiries. bound to be the case. We are expecting the Our conclusion is that the system is working members of the committee who are not here yet to satisfactorily without significant problems. We arrive shortly. propose to continue to monitor the arrangement for a further period. I welcome Patricia Ferguson, Euan Robson and their supporting officials. Today‟s sole item of I repeat that inquiries using the business business is discussion of a number of issues that directory should be used only for obtaining factual have been under negotiation and discussion information that is needed urgently and that is not between the committee and the Executive. Those readily available from another source. It would issues are: the Scottish Executi ve business also be helpful if requests were made in writing— directory; the transparency of questions to by e-mail or longhand—so that staff can respond Executive agencies and non-departmental public comprehensively to them. bodies, or NDPBs—I always struggle to get the I turn to the transparency of questions. The initials in the right order; and the advisory cost limit committee wanted to give further consideration to of parliamentary questions. Other issues might how information relating to NDPBs and other arise in the discussion, but those are the issues public bodies could be made more publicly that are covered in the paper that members have available. Questions relating to operational received. matters in Executive agencies, NDPBs and other I hand over to Patricia Ferguson to make an public bodies are for the body concerned to deal introductory statement. Members will thereafter be with. However, there is a clear distinction between able to pursue the three issues and anything else Executive agencies and other bodies because the that they think is compellingly urgent and pertinent links between the former and the Executive are to the lead issues. closer than are those between the latter and the Executive. That is reflected in the way in which the The Minister for Parliamentary Business Executive responds to parliamentary questions. (Patricia Ferguson): I welcome the opportunity to Executive agencies are part of Executive contribute on behalf of the Executive to the departments and in some cases are departments committee‟s further consideration of parliamentary in their own right. Where a question relates to an questions and related issues. I welcome the operational matter, the agency‟s chief executive‟s continued co-operation of Executive and response is sought and incorporated in the reply. Parliamentary staff in the process; those close working arrangements have provided—I hope they NDPBs and other public bodies are not part of will continue to do so—a constructive approach to the Executive in the same way as are Executive the many issues that are under consideration. agencies; they operate more at arm‟s length. It is only right that questions about operational matters As we undertook previously to do, we have in NDPBs are dealt with directly by the bodies submitted a memorandum covering the Executive concerned. Questions should therefore be taken business directory, transparency and the advisory up with relevant chief executives. cost limit. It might be useful for me to make introductory remarks on each of those topics. I turn finally to the advisory cost limit. I am Thereafter Euan Robson and I will be happy to pleased to say that our preliminary findings are answer any questions that members might have. now available and I understand that copies have been distributed to committee members this Following an earlier recommendation by the morning. The key findings in the report show that committee, an electronic copy of the Executive‟s the average cost to the Executive of answering a 1429 12 MARCH 2002 1430 written question is £65.18 and that the average Patricia Ferguson: I suspect that low usage of time taken to provide an answer is 1.45 hours. the directory is the result of several factors. As the convener said, members might prefer to ask Following careful consideration of the results of parliamentary questions because such questions the study, we propose to establish an advisory are in the public domain. However, a variety of cost limit for Scottish questions. The threshold that other avenues are available to members. I suspect we propose is based on 20 hours‟ work to that members are using the business directory research and prepare an answer to a single only when they are unable to access from another question. Based on the findings of the survey, the source the information that they require. advisory cost limit would be set at £550. We would welcome the committee‟s views on that once The Convener: Has the Executive analysed the members have had the chance to consider it. The sort of inquiries that are being made, in order to threshold would apply where substantial work satisfy itself that those inquiries are urgent? I ask would need to be undertaken in order to answer a because on the three or four occasions that I have question. I emphasise that breaching the advisory used the facility, my inquiry has usually related to cost limit would not, in itself, be a reason not to planning matters and I have e-mailed the chief answer a question, particularly if the question planner to find out what the development related to matters of significant public interest or department is doing about a notifiable planning concern. application. I cannot say that any of my inquiries were urgent, but I cannot think whom else I could We would also be glad to hear the committee‟s have asked to get the information that I wanted views on applying the advisory cost limit to a within a few days. I am not sure that I met the group of related questions. It might be that the criteria that the minister set out in her introductory aggregated cost of dealing with a group of related remarks but, equally, I am not sure that I did questions would exceed the threshold, so I believe anything wrong. I believe that I did the appropriate that there might be a case for further guidance to thing in the circumstances. Do you have a view on members on lodging groups of questions, and for that? consideration of whether the advisory cost limit should be applied to groups of questions. Patricia Ferguson: I do not think that we would have a problem with members using the directory We propose to uprate the limit annually in line as the convener described, but these are still with movements in the Executive‟s pay and relatively early days. I am concerned that overhead costs. Parliament would, of course, be members are not as aware of the facility as they notified of that. A full review would be undertaken might be. We might, with the committee, want to every five years. highlight again its existence to members. We will The committee will, no doubt, wish to consider continue to monitor use of the facility and would be the proposals, but it would be useful to hear the happy to report back later to the committee with committee‟s views by, perhaps, the end of April to further information on how and why it is being enable us to make progress.