Scottish Parliament, 12 February 2004

428 contributions from 81 members. The official report.

Introduction

Oral Questions and Emergency Bills

George Reid (None, Ochil)

Good morning. The first item of business this morning is a debate on motion S2M-864, in the name of Iain Smith, on behalf of the Procedures Committee, on the committee's reports on oral questions and emergency bills.

Iain Smith (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

I am pleased to see so many members here this morning for this fascinating debate, which I am sure will be very entertaining.

This morning's debate covers three reports by the Procedures Committee. Two deal with oral questions. We have also taken the opportunity to issue a separate report on emergency bills and to deal with the changes to standing orders that it recommends.

Much of the committee's time in the current session has been taken up with considering the issue of oral questions. Members may recall that, early in the session, after an initial short inquiry, we recommended changes to First Minister's question time. Our second report of 2003 follows from the committee's consideration of wider issues relating to oral questions that arose partly from the original exchange of correspondence between the Presiding Officer and the First Minister and partly from our initial inquiry into First Minister's question time. The main focus of the report is on oral questions to ministers, but we also considered other aspects of First Minister's question time that we were not able to cover in our first report, which considered specifically the length and timing of First Minister's question time.

We have considered again the timing of First Minister's question time because of our report on question time and because we indicated that we would do so at the end of 2003. The second report that we are debating, our first report of 2004, contains recommendations on the timing of First Minister's question time.

The biggest proposed change is to introduce a thematic element to question time. The overall length of question time would be extended to an hour. We envisage that, of that hour, about 40 minutes would be allocated to questioning on one or two of the week's themes, with the remaining time being used for general questions, as at present. The themes for the week would be decided in advance, by means of a rota of Executive departments. We envisage that the rota would be decided before each main recess, so that members would have sufficient time to prepare for meetings when questions for particular departments would come up.

The new rules that we recommend do not prescribe how many themes should be dealt with each week and do not say what the themes should be. However, we envisage that initially they would be in line with the six themes that the Executive suggested to the committee in its evidence. Each theme would normally cover two Cabinet portfolios, but because health tends to attract a large number of questions, it would be dealt with on its own. We envisage that two of the six themes would be taken at each question time. The rota would ensure that there would be questions on each theme roughly every three weeks. Such a system would be sufficient to allow in-depth questioning of each minister on a three-weekly basis.

We were conscious that there was a feeling that topicality in question time needed to be retained and that members should have the opportunity to ask any minister a question in any week on a matter that might be too urgent to wait for the next time that that theme appears on the rota. For that reason, we recommend that a period of general question time similar to the present format be retained. We also considered how questions should be selected and agreed that we should retain the existing random process.

Tommy Sheridan (SSP, Glasgow)

I apologise if I have not read the reports properly, but can the member explain the proposed timescales that are attached to each of the suggestions? I know that there was a debate about whether there should be 20 minutes for each theme and 10 minutes for general questions, or 10 minutes for each theme and 20 minutes for general questions. What does the Procedures Committee propose?

Iain Smith (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

The committee is not recommending that standing orders should specify a fixed period for themed and general questions, to allow the Presiding Officer the flexibility to take account of the balance of questions in a particular week. However, the committee recommends that normally there should be 20 minutes for each theme, followed by 20 minutes of general questions. There would be three sessions of 20 minutes each week.

We agreed that random selection was the fairest way of selecting questions and should be retained. However, we considered whether members should be entitled to have a question in each of the three slots, if there are three slots in a week, or whether they should be restricted to one. In general, we came to the conclusion that members should be able to lodge a question for each section of question time. Members may put up to three questions a week into the random draw.

We also considered again issues relating to First Minister's question time. We believed that, generally speaking, the new format of half an hour was working well, as in every week since it was introduced all six questions have been reached. The new format also allows the Presiding Officer to select more back-bench supplementary questions.

We considered at length whether the open, diary-type questions that the leaders of the two main Opposition parties tend to ask should be retained. The device enables members to get round the rules for giving notice of questions and the committee believed that it allows for spontaneity and for issues of particular interest on the day to be raised.

We had to recognise that there is a balance in question time. It is partly about holding the Executive to account, partly about the politics of the event and partly about obtaining information. We did not want to disturb that balance, so we considered carefully how question time operates to ensure that the balance between the different themes remains. It should be remembered that there are other ways of holding the Executive to account—it is not just about question time in the chamber. For example, committees have an important role in holding the Executive to account.

We considered emergency questions and concluded that the existing process is satisfactory. We also considered questions to the Presiding Officer and the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body, which was raised by the Presiding Officer. Having done so, we agreed to recommend a revised process for questions to the corporate body. That would allow an oral question time to be scheduled at the discretion of the Parliamentary Bureau, which would lodge a motion to allow a session of up to 15 minutes for questions to the corporate body, which would be held on a regular basis. That is an important change to standing orders.

We took evidence not just from anoraks involved in the parliamentary process, but from beyond what are often referred to as the usual suspects. With the support of participation services, we commissioned two pieces of work. We conducted a survey of those who attended question time and First Minister's question time to find out what they thought of the event. That was a useful exercise, which gave us interesting feedback on what people thought. We also held a participation exercise involving a number of community groups: Building Healthy Communities, the Community Connections project, Community Links, the Democracy Disability and Society Group, Inverclyde Community Development Trust and Moray Against Poverty Network. The exercise was particularly beneficial and I place on record my thanks to those organisations for participating in the focus groups, which provided very interesting information.

We also made some recommendations in relation to emergency bills. Essentially, the recommendations are designed to tidy up the standing orders. At present, the process for emergency bills requires some other standing orders to be suspended, which we believed was not sensible. If the same standing orders have to be suspended regularly, it is better to change the standing orders to ensure that when a bill is declared to be an emergency bill the process is in place to deal with it.

Phil Gallie (Conservative, South of Scotland)

During the committee's deliberations, was any thought given to the powers of the Presiding Officer with respect to control of question time and First Minister's question time?

Iain Smith (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

We gave consideration to the powers of the Presiding Officer and took evidence from him. We believe that the powers and discretion that he has are adequate and that the Presiding Officer is satisfied with the powers that he has to control question time—he is nodding. We do not believe that there is a need to change the powers and discretion that are available to the Presiding Officer.

The final question that we dealt with was the much more vexed question of the timing of First Minister's question time. There are considerable differences of opinion in the chamber—and, indeed, in the committee—on whether the moving of First Minister's question time to 12 o'clock has been a success. On balance, the committee felt that it was perhaps too early to come to a final decision on that issue. We felt that the experiment had been running for only a relatively short time—a couple of months—and we felt that the changes that we were proposing for question time as a whole were quite fundamental. We wanted to ensure that those changes could be examined in their own right.

Question time is a parliamentary occasion and should be able to stand on its own two feet. The committee wanted to be able to judge the effectiveness of the changes made to question time separately from the issue of when First Minister's question time should be held. Therefore, we felt that we should continue to run the existing experiment at 12 noon for a further period, and, in parallel, run the new experiment on question time.

I have probably run over time already so I conclude by saying that the Procedures Committee believes that the Parliament should be willing to consider change and should not become set in its ways. We should avoid the "aye been" syndrome. Therefore, we recommend these changes to standing orders for question time as an experiment, to see how effective they are. We will reconsider the experiment later in the session and, before the summer recess, we intend to produce a further report on whether we think that the changes should be made permanent. The committee feels that we should have in place a permanent system for question time for when we move to our permanent home in Holyrood after the summer.

I move,

That the Parliament notes the Procedures Committee's recommendations for changes to the format of Question Time and other aspects of oral questioning in its 2nd Report, 2003 (Session 2), Oral Questions in the Chamber, and about the timing of First Minister's Question Time and Question Time in its 1st Report, 2004 (Session 2), Oral Questions and Time in the Chamber, further notes the Committee's recommendations for changes to the procedure for Emergency Bills in its 2nd report, 2004 (Session 2), Report on Emergency Bills, and agrees that the changes to standing orders set out in Annexe A to the 2nd Report, 2003 (Session 2) and in Annexe A to the 2nd Report, 2004 (Session 2) should be made with effect from 13 February 2004.

Bruce Crawford (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I begin by making a quick comment on the proposed changes to the procedures for emergency bills, as outlined in the Procedures Committee's report on emergency bills. The purpose of the committee's deliberations on the topic was to ensure that the process could be smoothed out with regard to the number of procedural motions required. We recognised that the timetabling of emergency bills could be controversial, so we took the opportunity to ensure that motions could be open to amendment and debate. That was the right decision. We believe that the changes that are laid out in the annex to the committee's report will achieve our objective, and we recommend that the Parliament support them.

I turn now to ordinary question time. There is a general view in the chamber that question time, as currently structured—and, in particular, since it became detached from First Minister's question time—has not proved to be as worthwhile an experience as it might have been, for either parliamentarians or members of the public. It has evolved into a process of exchanging information, with little real atmosphere or bite. There is little or no opportunity to explore any particular issue in depth with a minister. That is why I hope that a move to thematic questions—although it would be more accurate to call them department-based questions—will be of greater worth. In the meantime, it is right that we continue to have a 20-minute slot to deal with topical issues that a member may raise. That will allow members to put a minister under greater scrutiny and will lead to a more forensic style of questions.

The proof of that particular pudding will be in the eating. That is why it is important that we have a trial period. It will be down to members to make oral question time much more relevant and to add value to the parliamentary week. It was right for the Procedures Committee to decide that we should continue to have an element of topicality so that members continue to have the opportunity of raising important and perhaps pressing constituency questions.

I said earlier that oral question time has had less value since becoming detached from First Minister's question time. I believe that that is true, but I also believe that—at least for the time being—we cannot allow oral question time and First Minister's question time to run together. Let me explain why I believe that, building on what Iain Smith said.

If oral questions are to be a success in their own right and are to bring real value to the parliamentary week, they must be able to stand on their own merits and not be propped up by First Minister's question time. That was what happened with the previous arrangement. It will be fatal to question time if it cannot show that it has its own value and if it has to rely on First Minister's question time for its oxygen. That is the main reason why I believe that the committee was correct to decide, for now, to keep oral question time apart from First Minister's question time. If, at the end of the trial period, oral question time has shown that it cannot stand on its own merits, that will be the time to re-examine whether reconnecting it with First Minister's question time would improve the parliamentary week.

At the end of the trial period, we will have to reconsider the impact of the 12 o'clock start for First Minister's question time on participation rates—in respect of attendance in the public gallery and of media exposure. The figures from "Holyrood Live" show that the number of people who watch First Minister's question time has dropped remarkably. However, some of the statistics from broadcasting organisations were suspect, to say the least. The disparity in the figures—7,000 one week and 36,000 the next—is so large that there must be question marks over their accuracy. We must look into that in more depth, because I do not believe that the information that we have received is robust enough. When neither the quality of information, nor the quantity, is available, grounds for making an unsafe decision exist. The Tories—and Jamie McGrigor in particular—pressed hard on this issue; but I say to Jamie that we must consider more than just "Holyrood Live". We did not have any information on the impact of the changes to First Minister's question time on the lunch-time news.

Jamie McGrigor (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

rose—

Bruce Crawford (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I thought that that might get him up.

Jamie McGrigor (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

I thank the member for taking an intervention. Does he agree that, if there is important news at lunch time, First Minister's question time often does not get shown at all?

Bruce Crawford (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I am a bit mystified about how to answer that question, because I am not sure exactly what Jamie McGrigor means. If important news happened when First Minister's question time was at its previous time, it had no chance of getting on the lunch-time news. With the 12 o'clock start, there is always a chance of greater exposure, provided that the issues being raised in the chamber are significant enough.

Jamie McGrigor (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

rose—

Bruce Crawford (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I have to keep an eye on the time.

George Reid (None, Ochil)

You have plenty of time, Mr Crawford.

Bruce Crawford (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

In that case, I am happy to take another intervention.

Jamie McGrigor (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

Perhaps I did not make my point very well.

Bruce Crawford (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Correct.

Jamie McGrigor (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

The point that I am making is this: if there happens to be very important news on a particular day, there is often no coverage on the news of what goes on in the Parliament.

Bruce Crawford (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

That is about relevance and about how lively First Minister's question time is. It is down to the subject. However, if First Minister's question time is held in the afternoon, it has no chance of being on the lunch-time news—or the 6 o'clock news, come to that. That is the point. We need to examine how often there is an impact on the news.

The easy option would have been to do what Jamie did and to try to give the Executive a bloody nose. We could have done that and won the argument in committee to move First Minister's question time away from 12 noon, but the Procedures Committee does not exist to play political games; the duty of the Procedures Committee is to do the right thing. The decisions that we take will have to stand the test of time. The procedures that we set in place for the people who will follow us into the Parliament are the most important thing. It is not always about giving people a bloody nose.

Phil Gallie (Conservative, South of Scotland)

Will the member take an intervention?

Bruce Crawford (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Do I have time, Presiding Officer?

George Reid (None, Ochil)

You do indeed.

Phil Gallie (Conservative, South of Scotland)

Is not another duty of the Procedures Committee to ensure that the objectives of the consultative steering group are met? I am thinking about its objectives on accessibility, openness, responsiveness and public participation. Should those not be fundamental considerations for the committee?

Bruce Crawford (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Of course they should. That is why we need to have much more robust and rigorous information available to us so that, when we look at the issue again later in the year, we can examine the issues that the member raises in a lot more detail.

I depart from the views of the convener of the Procedures Committee on one issue that relates to Phil Gallie's point. I think that the Presiding Officer should have been given more control, not just over questions but over answers. I realise that it is not always easy for ministers to answer questions concisely, but there are occasions when ministers waffle on, to cover up an issue to which they do not have an answer to hand. On such occasions, the Presiding Officer needs to have the power to shorten the minister's contribution and to ensure that the answer is relevant to the question that was asked. I would like us to come back to that issue later.

I have been speaking for nine minutes so I will conclude by returning to my earlier point. The Procedures Committee exists to ensure that we put in place robust and rigorous procedures that will stand the test of time, so that the people who follow us in the Parliament have a worthwhile system that makes the parliamentary week work well.

I support the committee's report.

Jamie McGrigor (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

I want to talk about moving First Minister's question time and about how that move has affected ministers' question time, because that is important for everybody in the chamber—and for the people who are not here now.

I regret to say that the moving of First Minister's question time from the Thursday afternoon slot to Thursday at noon represents the triumph of spin over substance and the triumph of party-political interests over parliamentary and public interests. We can sum up the reason for the switch in two words: Alastair Campbell. Mr Campbell convinced Mr Blair to move Prime Minister's question time from a mid-afternoon to a noon slot at Westminster, so that it could be spun more effectively—in his way—on the news. Predictably, the same new Labour mindset finally made it north of the border and Mr McConnell's spinners up here decided that what was good for Tony must be good for Jack.

Has the move been good for Jack, though? Maybe it has, but I do not think that we can possibly claim that it has been good for the Scottish Parliament or for the public. Since the move, there has been a distinct loss of atmosphere in the chamber, in particular at question time. I am glad that Bruce Crawford agrees that that is the case.

Karen Gillon (Labour, Clydesdale)

Is it the First Minister's responsibility to make question time work, or is that members' responsibility?

Jamie McGrigor (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

It is the Parliament's responsibility to make question time work as best as it can for the people of Scotland.

Let us consider how the figures stack up. Since the switch, the viewing figures for the BBC's "Holyrood Live" have plummeted from an average of 46,000 to an average of 18,000. We have no excuse, because the BBC and the Parliament's broadcasting unit warned us that that would happen. Those figures represent a huge number of people in a small country such as Scotland.

Alasdair Morgan (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

Will the member give way?

Jamie McGrigor (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

Later on.

The audience of "Holyrood Live" is not concentrated in one location, but can be found in every Highland village, every island community and every town and city in Scotland. Those who support the switch claim that it has been good for visitors to the Parliament, and especially for schools. Of course those visitors are important, but their number cannot exceed 400, because that is the capacity of the gallery—and the capacity at Holyrood will be 250. Television represents a far greater public gallery.

Bruce Crawford (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Will the member give way?

Jamie McGrigor (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

Not now, I want to make progress.

However, the report emphasises the numbers in the public gallery. We carried out a survey of visitors, but can a survey of self-selected visitors truly reflect opinion? The survey was distributed only to people who attended First Minister's question time at 12 noon. There was no remit to survey a wider group and the option of holding First Minister's question time at 2 pm on a Thursday, prior to ministers' question time, was never included. Yet the results of that flawed survey are being used to hail the move as a great success, even though they show that only 53 per cent of those questioned in the survey supported the move to noon, which is hardly a ringing endorsement.

Karen Gillon (Labour, Clydesdale)

Does the member accept that one of the founding principles of the Scottish Parliament was to re-engage with the people of Scotland? Young people represent one of the age groups that have become the most disenchanted with politics. One of the Parliament's major achievements has been its ability to re-engage with young people. Young people from my constituency cannot participate in the Parliament if First Minister's question time takes place in the afternoon; they can do so now and have done so every week since the move to the noon slot.

Jamie McGrigor (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

I take the point that it is important to engage with schoolchildren and young people, but we can engage with far more young people—

Karen Gillon (Labour, Clydesdale)

No.

Jamie McGrigor (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

Yes we can. I am afraid that the member is wrong—she is talking only about the central belt. There has actually been a 5 per cent drop in attendance at First Minister's question time, from an average of 309 to an average of 295.

Karen Gillon (Labour, Clydesdale)

rose—

Jamie McGrigor (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

Sorry, but I tell the member this because it is true: the number of visitors to the public gallery has gone down. It is not as though we are saying that more people have visited the public gallery since the move; there have been fewer visitors. I cannot understand why some members say that the move has been a success—actually I think I can understand why. In fact, the move has led to a reduction in the number of visitors to the gallery, including schoolchildren, and there has been a huge drop in television viewing figures.

Why is the move being viewed as a success by its supporters? Let us consider those supporters.

Cathie Craigie (Labour, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

Will the member give way?

Jamie McGrigor (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

No, I will not. All right, I will. Do I have plenty of time?

Cathie Craigie (Labour, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

I am honoured and I am sure that Jamie McGrigor has plenty of time.

Does the member accept that the fact that First Minister's question time and ministers' question time take place in two different time slots allows many more people to view question time as a whole? The statistics that were given to the committee showed that more people were visiting the gallery over both sessions.

Jamie McGrigor (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

With the greatest respect to the member, that is the biggest load of rubbish that I have ever heard. The viewing figures speak for themselves. There has been a drop in gallery figures and a drop of thousands in the TV audience.

Let us consider who is supporting the move. I am not surprised that Mr McConnell and the Labour Party support it and I have said why. However, it is odd that the Scottish National Party's front bench supports the move. Bruce Crawford, the SNP business manager, is apparently keen on the idea—perhaps he is doing John Swinney's bidding. Why should such an alliance have been forged? Perhaps the SNP believes that by holding First Minister's question time at noon it will get coverage on the lunch-time news for all of a 20-second soundbite. That is the trade-off: a 20-second soundbite against good TV coverage for the whole of First Minister's question time. Perhaps the SNP does not want to expose Mr Swinney at all. Perhaps Mr Swinney just likes to have a long, relaxing lunch break after finishing an onerous First Minister's question time—who knows? I do not know.

Alasdair Morgan (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

People in glass houses, Jamie.

Jamie McGrigor (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

Given that the Parliament is committed to accessibility, the move is surely an outrage—I cannot understand it. First Minister's question time on "Holyrood Live" offered one of the few chances for the whole country to see its Parliament unfiltered and unedited.

Alasdair Morgan (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

Will the member give way?

Jamie McGrigor (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

No.

The coverage on "Holyrood Live" also gave back benchers a chance to shine—not many of them are here today—and gave people a chance to see their constituency and regional members performing or not performing, as the case may be.

Alasdair Morgan (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

The member seems to be putting forward the case that we should hold First Minister's question time at a time that maximises television viewing figures. That does not necessarily mean that it should take place at 3 pm; the figures might show that we would get the maximum number of viewers at 8 am. Does he suggest that we meet then? That is the logic of his position.

George Reid (None, Ochil)

Another minute would do nicely, Mr McGrigor.

Jamie McGrigor (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

Did the member say 3 am? We should certainly not meet at 3 am, although I would support late meetings of the Parliament.

I appreciate that the news coverage might attract more viewers for 20 seconds than "Holyrood Live", but live TV coverage offers the one chance that the public has to see its Parliament in action. The 20-second soundbite hardly ever features back benchers, even when they have asked a question, because the BBC leaves the action in the chamber to go to the analysis with Iain McWhirter at 12:20—and sometimes earlier—which is the very point at which back benchers get their chance to ask the First Minister a question. That is unfair. Back benchers of all parties should not let the Alastair Campbell mindset dictate how the Parliament runs its business.

Given that our Parliament is committed to maximising access to proceedings, it is irresponsible to throw away half of the TV audience. Let us get back to making the Parliament as public and as transparent as possible and let us try to put substance before spin.

Donald Gorrie (Liberal Democrat, Central Scotland)

My colleagues and I regard the issues that we are discussing as parliamentary and individual; the Executive parties and others do not have a set view on which they will vote and debate accordingly. I speak as an anorak: I am a former enthusiastic member of the Procedures Committee; a citizen of procedure land now in exile elsewhere. The Procedures Committee has produced some interesting points. My colleagues and I have great confidence that the convener, Iain Smith, will sustain liberal values in the committee's work.

The tidying up of the emergency bill procedure is sensible. I have read the report on that issue, but I missed, if it exists in the text, what is to happen to the existing procedure whereby the Presiding Officer and his office authorise bills and say that they do not trespass on wholly—or holy—Westminster ground. The law people also have to do their bit. The lady in London whose title I never remember and who is paid a lot for doing very little evidently has to authorise such bills. I presume that those procedures will still apply. I see that Iain Smith is nodding his head in the correct manner.

Thank you. Other than that query, I thought that the tidying up of the procedure is excellent.

On the issue of questions, I must be careful, Presiding Officer, because you were a major participant in producing the text that members have been reading before the debate. If members do not enthusiastically support the Presiding Officer's view, that is a bit like criticising Hamlet for his soliloquy.

I am an enthusiast for themed questions at general question time, which is one procedure that works quite well at Westminster. The introduction of themed questions here is a good step forward. I hope that there will be flexibility with regard to supplementary questions so that members who have already asked a question and who would otherwise probably not be likely to be called could sneak in point that they were trying to raise as a supplementary on the back of another member's question. That would allow the issue to be probed as well as possible.

One difficulty for the authorities and the Presiding Officer is that, to oversimplify, there are two types of question. For example, my colleague who represents the area keeps asking about Laurencekirk station—legitimately so—but other members ask general questions about rural transport or urban congestion. A balance must be struck between general policy questions and "What are you doing about my little patch?" questions because it would be a pity if either type dominated proceedings. The general idea of a themed question time is a good step forward and I hope that the trial works well.

I am one of a fair number of members who think that the morning is not such a good time for First Minister's question time, but it is a reasonable compromise that the trial should continue. I am not sure whether it will be possible to reach a conclusion by the Easter recess rather than the summer recess, but I suggest that if, by Easter, the general opinion is clearly that the new system is not working as well as it might, we should correct the matter then. To find out how the system is working, we must examine more carefully the subjects of who watches BBC television and how many children come to the chamber and from which areas. Unfortunately, we must accept that television is an important medium, which means that anything that reduces the television audience must be viewed with suspicion.

On the content of questions, I accept the point that I think Karen Gillon made—it may have been Cathie Craigie—that MSPs as well as ministers are to blame for bad question times. I have attended committee meetings in which the average length of the questions was longer than the average length of the replies, which is wrong.

Some MSPs use supplementary questions to make mini-speeches, which is also wrong. That is a difficult situation for the referee sitting in the chair—the Presiding Officer—to get right. If we encourage members to ask short, sharp questions and the minister to make similar replies, the system will work better. However, I accept the Presiding Officer's opinion that dark words in the corridor may be more effective than rules that are difficult to interpret.

The Procedures Committee's proposals are a step forward. I do not think that having First Minister's question time at midday has been a success, but I accept that we should extend the trial to find out whether we can make the new system better. In general, the proposals will improve the working of the Parliament.

George Reid (None, Ochil)

I call Cathie Craigie.

Cathie Craigie (Labour, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

It is a bit of a surprise to be called to speak, Presiding Officer—I thought that one of my colleagues was to be next. However, I thank you for the opportunity to speak; I am sure that you have been inundated with requests. It is an honour to be called, given the demand.

Tommy Sheridan (SSP, Glasgow)

From the massed ranks.

Cathie Craigie (Labour, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

Yes.

As members know, the Procedures Committee has considered and been exercised by the issues of First Minister's question time and questions to ministers for several months. I am sure that the committee members agree that we sometimes felt as if we were going round in circles and that we could not please everybody all the time.

We asked whether FMQT should run back to back with questions to ministers; whether FMQT has been a success at 12 noon and should be kept at that time; whether it should be held on Thursdays or Wednesdays; whether we should change questions to ministers to another day; whether we should have only themed questions or themed and general questions; how long should be given to themed and general questions; and how many questions members should be allowed to submit. That is not an exhaustive list of our questions.

The committee has listened to and considered the many points that have been raised. I am sure that if members have read our report or attended the committee—which is compulsive viewing on Tuesday mornings—they will know that we received many responses to our questions. However, the flood of responses did not show that a consensus exists out there about the answer to any of the questions that we posed. There was no consensus among groups—even party-political groups—on many of our questions.

As Bruce Crawford said, the information that we have about broadcasting is not detailed enough. We need more information on, and analysis of, how FMQT is received through all the broadcast media. It was not the correct road to go down to base our recommendations simply on the viewing figures for "Holyrood Live", important though that is to the work of the Parliament.

It was important that we took on board what was being said by the public in the gallery. There was some debate in the Procedures Committee about how reflective of the views of the public those opinions would be. I feel strongly that none of us should control who is in the gallery—it is for the public to choose to come along in groups or individually. The views of the people who are watching are important. On Jamie McGrigor's point, I refer him to the papers that were issued to the Procedures Committee—probably just after our report was compiled—which detail the number of people in the galleries during FMQT and questions to ministers. He will see that, on most days, the numbers were greater at those times than at other times. We cannot base our recommendations on that, however.

We are right to recommend a new approach to FMQT and questions to ministers, in which questions are themed—that should continue for a period so that we can reflect on how successful or otherwise it has been.

There was general agreement in the committee with Bruce Crawford's suggestion that question time must stand on its own. The idea that FMQT and questions to ministers should support each other is not a sufficient reason to move either of them. An increasing number of members are missing questions to ministers and FMQT—if those forums are unable to sustain the interest of members, we should ask the question posed by Bruce Crawford about whether it is worth continuing with them.

I hope that we will participate in the trial period and, as the convener of the Procedures Committee said, that we will be ready with a system that will serve us in the new parliament building.

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

I preface my remarks with some general comments. I do not believe that the modus operandi of the Parliament is anywhere near right. I hope that the reforms to question time that are being introduced by the Procedures Committee will be the start of wide-ranging reform of how we conduct our business. I have three examples of where we still have got it badly wrong.

The first is the way in which we schedule debates and the time that we allocate to important debates. Debates on the Scottish economy in the Scottish Parliament average 1 hour and 50 minutes. However, an average of 7 or 8 hours was allocated to debates on the Scottish economy at Westminster—big, bad Westminster—over the 20 years before this Parliament was set up. That does not reflect well on the Scottish Parliament and it does not fulfil what was meant to be our democratic ambition.

Secondly—

George Reid (None, Ochil)

I ask you not to make your introduction too long, Mr Neil, before you get to the substance of the motion.

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

Absolutely.

Secondly, another general issue that I hope that the Procedures Committee will address is that of speaking times and the grip that the party hierarchies have on who speaks and in what order.

I will address the specific issues—

Karen Gillon (Labour, Clydesdale)

How did the member manage to get to speak today?

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

I am thinking of the 35 Labour back benchers who are always struggling to get on to the list.

Bill Butler (Labour, Glasgow Anniesland)

On that point, and for Mr Neil's elucidation, the system is run on a first-come, first-served basis for Labour members. The quicker members are, the quicker they get on to the list. Does the member agree that that is the way that it should be in all parties?

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

I think that it should be up to the Presiding Officer, but that is a debate for another day.

George Reid (None, Ochil)

Precisely.

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

On FMQT—let's face it—John and Jack will never get the viewing figures of Des and Mel. The main issue for us is not whether 20,000 or 30,000 more people watch at 2.30 pm or 3 pm than watch at 12 pm. The maximum viewing figure for FMQT has never gone over about 50,000. FMQT—the highlight of the Scottish parliamentary week—could not, by any stretch of the imagination, be described as gripping the nation. It does not matter when it is held. Much of the reason for that is that, like question time, much of FMQT is boring to the average person watching television. That is the responsibility of front benchers and back benchers.

There are some specifics about FMQT that the committee has not addressed but which I believe, while perhaps not requiring a change to standing orders, nevertheless need to be addressed. A first-past-the-post member with a constituency interest is almost certain to be called to ask a question or a supplementary. List members are treated as if they do not have constituency interests. They have such interests, however. For example, anybody would agree—particularly Margaret Jamieson—that I have a particular interest in Kilmarnock prison. I also have a particular interest in the Greengairs issue, which is the subject of a question this afternoon. There are many issues to do with how supplementaries are selected and who is invited to ask them.

Cathie Craigie (Labour, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

Seven or eight list MSPs, including Mr Neil, represent Central Scotland. Is he suggesting that when the Presiding Officer takes a question from a constituency member for that area, all the list members should get in as well?

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

No. There are seven list members for each area, and the parties that have list members tend to have members who lead in particular constituencies. For example, it is reasonably well-known that I have taken the lead in recent years in most of the Lanarkshire constituencies, along with my colleague Linda Fabiani, while Michael Matheson has concentrated on, say, Falkirk. If that is known to the Presiding Officer, I would hope that it would be reflected in who is called to ask supplementaries. The idea that only first-past-the-post members have constituency interests is nonsense and does not properly reflect the make-up of the chamber.

I have many other points to make but I do not have time to make them because, to get back to my second point, the arrangements for speaking times in the chamber are a nonsense.

Mark Ballard (Green, Lothians)

There is much to welcome in the three reports. The idea of a themed question time is a good one, as it will allow for proper questioning of ministers. After all, any question time should be about the whole Parliament properly scrutinising Executive ministers. The two 20-minute themed sections will be effective slots in which to do that. It is a worthwhile experiment, and it is good that we are carrying it out now, so that we can settle the matter before we move to the new building at Holyrood.

I am pleased that we are identifying ways of making progress with SPCB and Presiding Officer question times. I hope that the Parliamentary Bureau will take the opportunity to schedule such question times. In the evidence received by the Procedures Committee, it appeared that similar question times had been very successful in the Welsh Assembly. I hope that that experiment will be taken up in order to ensure that when we move to the new building, we will have a proper set of question times and a proper set of procedures for them.

I was new to emergency bills but they have been explained to me and I understand the logic of the proposals and suggestions that were made to the committee.

I think that we missed some areas in the reports. Other members have commented on the requirements of rule 13.7 of standing orders, which covers the way in which questions are asked. We should have explored in more depth the requirements on the way in which questions are answered. In particular, I refer to paragraph 8 of rule 13.7, which states that supplementary questions must cover the same subject matter as the original question and that they must be brief. It would have been worth while to explore further the idea that the answers to those questions should also cover the same area as the original question and should also be brief.

The convener of the committee mentioned the consultation exercises that were carried out. I was particularly struck by some of the things that were said by a community group from West Lothian. Having watched First Minister's question time, the group said:

"There was a lack of respect to fellow members in the chamber - too much chit-chat and hilarity while debates were taking place."

The group also felt that there was "too much heckling".

We should all reflect on those views. If we want the Parliament to be taken seriously, and if we want to project it as a place where serious things are discussed, we must conduct ourselves in a serious manner. If we do not do that, we will never be taken seriously. We should all reflect on how we can ensure that members treat one another with seriousness and that debates are conducted seriously.

Alasdair Morgan (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

I do not necessarily disagree with the member, but there is a logical inconsistency in his remarks. If we are not treated seriously, it is often in comparison with Westminster. On the other hand, behaviour at Westminster is far worse than behaviour here. How does the member explain that?

Mark Ballard (Green, Lothians)

The problem is not about Westminster versus Holyrood but about the fact that politics is not taken seriously. One of the things that has undermined the general standing of the political system in the United Kingdom is that there have been too many "Order, order, order" debates in the House of Commons. I do not think that we should try to replicate such argument, heckling and shouting in this chamber. To do so would do nothing for us; having watched such behaviour, I do not think that it does anything for Westminster.

We ought to take cognisance of the views that have been expressed by the public. We should be serious about how we ask questions, serious about how ministers and the First Minister answer them, and serious about how we conduct ourselves as the audience during any question time.

Finally, I move to the timing of First Minister's question time, which is the issue that has dominated the debate so far. We should recognise the things that have worked. The fact that it lasts for half an hour allows more back benchers to get in and allows proper representation of the leaders of all the political parties in the chamber. We ought to recognise that those aspects are successes. However, I am still unconvinced of the success of the noon start for First Minister's question time. I accept that the experiment should continue, given that we are changing oral questions to ministers, but I remain unconvinced that noon is an effective time to start the session. For example, I was concerned that Karen Gillon would have to conclude the debate as members streamed in for First Minister's question time. The timing of First Minister's question time is disruptive to the debate that takes place on Thursday morning, and I do not think that it represents good scheduling.

First Minister's question time should be in the first slot—logically, to me, that means that it should start on Wednesday or Thursday afternoon. It has lost atmosphere and it is not in an effective slot for the Parliament. As Jamie McGrigor said, the new slot has lost an audience for the entire event, and that loss is not compensated for by limited coverage of the leader of the Opposition and the First Minister on the lunchtime news. We should continue to explore other options for First Minister's question time. I am prepared to let the experiment continue, but I am not convinced that it is working.

Tommy Sheridan (SSP, Glasgow)

Mark Ballard finished on a point about the timing of First Minister's question time. I wonder whether we should consider moving it to first thing on Thursday morning as an experiment. It would be interesting to see whether it is so popular that everyone would flock to the chamber at that time. That would ensure that the alleged reason for changing the time is accounted for, because anything that is said in the morning could make it on to the lunchtime news. Overall, however, although I have my doubts about whether the change has been successful, it is too early to come to a conclusion.

There is a case for the separation of oral questions to ministers and First Minister's question time. The way that we did things in the past tended to undermine the importance of oral questions to ministers, and the separation has helped to focus attention on them. I think that it was Cathie Craigie or Margaret Jamieson who suggested that fewer people now attend question time. That might be the case, but there is more focus on those oral questions than there was in the past, when we were simply waiting for First Minister's question time to start. Perhaps it would help if the two sessions were on different days—that would give us more flexibility with time.

I have listened to the debate and I welcome much of the reports' contents. We should pay tribute—I am sure that the Procedures Committee does so regularly—to the clerking and admin staff, who effectively run the Parliament. Where would we be without the business bulletin or the Official Report? We have excellent staff, who do not always get the recognition that they deserve for the work that they put in. It is important for us to recognise that, and I am glad that the Procedures Committee's report refers to the implications of the change in timing for the staff, in terms of the turnaround of questions and deadlines. I hope that we will continue to keep such issues uppermost in our minds.

In my opinion, there are a couple of areas that the Procedures Committee has not yet fully investigated. I have raised the issue of supplementary questions before; I am not sure that we can solve it in this chamber, but I hope that we will do so in the new chamber. The Scottish Trades Union Congress, in its evidence to the Procedures Committee, raised the matter of the transparency of the selection of supplementary questions. I do not want to have a go at the Deputy Presiding Officers or the Presiding Officer, because they have a difficult task: they are faced with a limited timescale and a large number of members who want to ask supplementary questions. The difficulty is that the selection process is not transparent. Observers, whether they are in the gallery or watching television, do not know how many members want to ask a supplementary question or who they are. I wonder whether the panels in the new chamber will allow the request-to-speak lights to be more visible, so that the number of members who want to ask a supplementary question on a particular issue is more apparent. That would not be a hindrance to the Presiding Officer—

Phil Gallie (Conservative, South of Scotland)

Will the member take an intervention?

Tommy Sheridan (SSP, Glasgow)

Sure.

Phil Gallie (Conservative, South of Scotland)

Does the member agree that one of the benefits of the Westminster system is that individuals rise when they want to catch the Speaker's eye? That gives the indication that Tommy Sheridan refers to.

Tommy Sheridan (SSP, Glasgow)

It gives an indication, but it is not effective. Everyone who has watched debates at Westminster has seen a large number of people rising, only one of whom is selected. I do not think that that is a particularly effective or modern method of attracting the attention of the Speaker. If members of the public who watch Scottish Parliament debates on television or from the gallery were to see lots of members repeatedly rising to ask questions and sitting down, it would not look particularly modern or efficient.

However, if we had a system whereby a light came on to show that a member was trying to ask a question, that would show the difficulty that the Presiding Officer has when there is a limited amount of time but lots of members trying to come in. It would also show any observers that their MSP wanted to ask a question. The public might be sitting there thinking, "Why are you not asking a question?" and although the member has tried to ask a question, they have no way of proving that. If they could show that they had tried to ask a question, that would confirm the interaction between the member and the public. It would be worth while for the Procedures Committee to look into that idea.

The Procedures Committee should be a special committee.

Karen Gillon (Labour, Clydesdale)

It is a very special committee.

Tommy Sheridan (SSP, Glasgow)

What I mean by that—and I mean no offence to any of the committee's current members—is that it should be above politics, as it has the interests of the whole Parliament to consider. That is difficult as, apart from the independents, we are all members of political parties. It is difficult to be as objective as we need to be; nevertheless, the Procedures Committee has to try to develop that objectivity.

Finally, I hope that the Procedures Committee will be willing to consider the need for extra powers in the Parliament to hold ministers to account. The ministerial code, in itself, does not mean that ministers are above the accountability of other members. I hope that the committee will consider representations from members on that.

Richard Baker (Labour, North East Scotland)

The Procedures Committee has given a great deal of consideration to the issues and reports that we are debating today. We propose to make the procedure for emergency bills more transparent so that it runs more smoothly. We have also sought to make changes to Executive question time to create a format that will not only allow more focused scrutiny of specific areas of the Executive's work on a broadly departmental basis, but make Executive question time more distinctive and, it is hoped, give it a higher profile in its own right.

The changes that we are suggesting to the timing and format of both First Minister's question time and Executive question time are on a trial basis. We believe that we are striking a balance between giving the new formats time to bed down and ensuring that tried and tested formats are in place when we move into our new chamber at Holyrood.

Even before the decoupling of the question times, it was clear that we had to examine ways in which to ensure that Executive question time had a distinct identity and a profile that did not simply feed off its proximity to First Minister's question time. We also needed to look to its format, rather than where it was in relation to FMQT, to find ways of attracting a larger audience and increasing its profile.

The idea of introducing a thematic element to Executive question time reflects the evidence that the committee received, which included a letter from the First Minister proposing that we consider such a change. Under the proposal, there will be six department-based themes, although, to allow for flexibility, we would not enshrine that in the standing orders. There would be questioning for two departments each week, allowing more focus on areas of ministerial responsibility. The additional time that we propose for Executive questions means that, every week, two themes will receive adequate time for debate.

The fact that we propose to continue to have an element of general questioning means that members will still be able to ask questions that either are not covered under the themes for questioning in that week but that need to be discussed because they are topical, or do not fall neatly into the themes that have been suggested. Moreover, all members will have an equal right to ask questions and an equal chance of having their questions selected. I believe that it is good for back benchers that we did not accept the proposal to have a mini-FMQT on a departmental basis, as that would have placed the majority of the focus on party spokespeople.

Almost inevitably, the issue in the committee's recent deliberations that has received most attention, especially outwith the committee, is that of the format and timing of FMQT. I say to Jamie McGrigor that, although Alastair Campbell has been accused of many things, he can rarely have been accused of setting the time for questions in the Scottish Parliament. Given the fate of others, Mr McGrigor should perhaps exercise caution before trying to hold Alastair Campbell accountable for that.

Jamie McGrigor (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

I was describing the Alastair Campbell mindset. I said that Tony Blair had been persuaded to change the timing of Prime Minister's question time at Westminster because of the mindset across the border and that an Alastair Campbell mindset had been adopted here.

Richard Baker (Labour, North East Scotland)

The mindset of Alastair Campbell is to get as much attention and publicity as possible for the Prime Minister and his policies. That is why Prime Minister's question time was moved to an earlier time. He probably made the same judgment as was made here when we decided that we wanted to try to get a broader cross-section of the Scottish public listening to and watching FMQT.

Our report reflects a widely held opinion that the allocation of additional time for FMQT has worked well, giving adequate opportunity for minority party leaders to ask questions and giving back benchers a reasonable chance of asking a question or a supplementary. The report also reflects the view that the current format of FMQT is successful.

More controversial is the timing of FMQT. Much of the committee's debate focused on the audience figures for programmes that cover FMQT, such as "Holyrood Live". As Bruce Crawford said, the BBC gave evidence arguing against the current timing of FMQT, which it believes has adversely affected the audience figures. There is no doubt that "Holyrood Live" provides invaluable coverage of the Parliament's work. However, we must look at the broader picture of the coverage of FMQT on other BBC programmes and across the channels. The highlights of FMQT cannot be broadcast on the BBC lunchtime news or on the lunchtime news of STV or Grampian TV.

Mark Ballard (Green, Lothians)

Will Richard Baker take an intervention?

Richard Baker (Labour, North East Scotland)

I do not have time. I am in my last minute.

The cumulative audience figure for all those programmes is much higher than the figure that "Holyrood Live" is able to achieve.

The issue is not only about television audience figures. The fact is that the shift in time has made it easier for schoolchildren to attend. We gathered, from our questionnaires from people who had attended FMQT, that many people found the current time convenient.

The changes that we propose mean that both question times will run in their new formats for a trial period. We will then have an opportunity to review their success before we settle on the formats that we will use in the new Parliament building. That is a sensible approach. The changes that we have recommended are innovative and give us an opportunity to take more interest in the way in which we ask questions of ministers. I commend the conclusions of the committee's reports to Parliament.

John Swinburne (SSCUP, Central Scotland)

This has been an interesting, if poorly attended, debate. We have the public up in the public gallery and we are wondering what the television people are thinking about the debates in the place. When the public come to view what is happening in this arena and see only 15 out of 129 MSPs, the Procedures Committee could do an awful lot worse than see what it can do about the lack of attendance. I do not know whether that is part of the committee's remit. Frankly, to stand and take part in a debate on parliamentary navel gazing is not the most exciting prospect in the world, but these things have to be done.

I agree that we have to consider when we should have First Minister's question time and Executive question time to make the maximum impact. However, the most important question that we can address is the non-attendance of members during the 12 hours for which we are in the chamber.

Iain Smith (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

Does the member recognise that there are other ways in which members can pay attention to what is going on in the chamber without having to be physically present? I always have the chamber TV channel on in my office during the day when I am working but not in the chamber.

John Swinburne (SSCUP, Central Scotland)

I agree, but how many of the 129 members are here? Where is everyone else? They all have important duties to carry out but, as a newcomer to this place, I am appalled at their lack of attendance in the chamber. I think that the Procedures Committee should look into that.

Phil Gallie (Conservative, South of Scotland)

I support the comments that have been made by John Swinburne. The Parliament sits in plenary session for one and a half days a week. I am concerned about the shortness of time that members have in which to make their speeches in the Parliament. One thing that the Procedures Committee must do—especially if it is going to extend question time—is reconsider the hours of the plenary meetings and perhaps extend them as well.

Iain Smith (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

The member will be aware that one of the report's recommendations is to increase the length of plenary meetings on Thursdays to accommodate the extra half hour by which we have increased the question times—10 minutes for First Minister's question time and 20 minutes for Executive question time.

Phil Gallie (Conservative, South of Scotland)

Yes, I am aware of that. I am pleased about that extension. It is a part of the report that I endorse.

Earlier, Mr Smith commented on the powers of the Presiding Officer in respect of question times—indeed, the Presiding Officer acknowledged his point. I believe that that has to be looked at. When back benchers ask a question, they are obliged to stick to the point of the question that is in the business bulletin—they must ask a closed question. I accept that the Presiding Officer should ensure that members do that, but I believe that the Presiding Officer should also have the power to hold ministers to the same line rather than allowing them to expand the answer and go on for quite some time in a way that was described earlier as waffling. We have to tighten up on that. The Presiding Officer should have the same powers as the Speaker in the House of Commons has to ensure that ministers stay in line.

Mark Ballard said that having thematic questions is a good idea. Of course it is; the proposal was advanced by David McLetchie nearly two years ago. David McLetchie has a lot of good ideas and the Parliament would be extremely wise if it took some of them on board.

Bill Aitken (Conservative, Glasgow)

This has hardly been the most riveting debate that the Parliament has had, but it is, nevertheless, an important one. In debating such issues, we are dealing with the presentation of the Scottish Parliament. We have a clear duty to present the Parliament in its most interesting and attractive form. The Procedures Committee should have been considering whether our procedures allow that to happen.

The committee's reports suffer from the curate's-egg syndrome, in that they are good in parts. We support some of the measures, such as the improved ways of dealing with emergency bills, provided that there is no difficulty with Opposition parties being able properly to hold the Executive to account. I am sure that there would not be. We are also enthusiastic proponents of the idea of thematic question times. Karen Gillon will recall that I was enthusiastic about the idea when I gave evidence to the committee. The proposal would certainly make for much more interesting question times.

Bruce Crawford (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

On the issue of emergency bills, does Bill Aitken accept that the committee recommended that amendments could be lodged at a later stage than usual in the emergency bill procedure and that that process did not exist before? The committee has strengthened the position of back benchers and Opposition parties. I suggest that Bill Aitken is being overly critical in that regard.

Bill Aitken (Conservative, Glasgow)

I was merely adding the caveat that we have to ensure that Opposition parties have the opportunity to approach these matters in the manner in which they would wish to. There certainly have been improvements.

I believe that thematic question times could bring considerable benefits to Parliament. Let us be honest: we are all politicians and know that politicians rarely ask a question without knowing the answer. Nevertheless, that is politics.

Like Jamie McGrigor, I am extremely disappointed that, despite the fact that the experiment with First Minister's question time has manifestly failed, as Mark Ballard noted, the committee has not suggested that the matter be revisited. It does not require self-styled anoraks such as Donald Gorrie to detect that the timing is extremely unfortunate.

Iain Smith (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

Does the member accept that the committee has agreed to revisit the matter? We have said that the trial period will be extended, which means that we will consider the matter again before the summer.

Bill Aitken (Conservative, Glasgow)

I accept that the move is experimental but, when the experiment is manifestly failing, why continue with it?

Jamie McGrigor was quite correct. Regardless of whether Alastair Campbell was involved, an unholy alliance between the Executive and the SNP has resulted in a deliberate attempt to change the time of FMQT in order to avoid the exposure of some fairly weak arguments, which we in the chamber have seen time and again. Mr Swinney has been discomfited during the exchanges, as Mr McGrigor quite rightly pointed out. Alex Neil was sitting to the rear of the chamber like an inscrutable Buddha, nodding his head as Mr McGrigor made that suggestion, although I am sure that that was purely coincidental.

The new timing of FMQT has resulted in plummeting television audiences. We have failed in a principal duty. We are not here to act as performing seals, but we are supposed to allow the public to see exactly what is happening in the Parliament. The timing of FMQT is an inhibiting factor in that respect.

Alasdair Morgan (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

The speeches of Jamie McGrigor and Bill Aitken were pathetic. Apart from the fact that they ignored most of what was in the Procedures Committee's reports, they built a castle in the air on the back of the alleged drop in television audience numbers. There has been a small change in what was already a very small number. Now, 97 per cent of the viewing public do not watch First Minister's question time, whereas previously 93 per cent did not.

Bill Aitken (Conservative, Glasgow)

Will the member give way?

Alasdair Morgan (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

I do not have time.

The fact is that the vast majority of people now prefer to watch strange people of whom I have never heard doing even stranger things in the middle of the jungle. How any Parliament would even try to compete with that, I do not know. I do not think that we should arrange our proceedings on the desire to maximise the attractiveness of this place to people who prefer to watch that kind of programme.

Themed question times are possibly a good idea, as they would allow much more in-depth scrutiny. However, we should be aware of the dangers that could arise from that proposal. Members have specific interests—not all of us are generalists—which means that some members will not have an interest in what is going on in a specific themed question time. In the House of Commons, which has 659 members, many of the question times are attended by a relatively small proportion of members. If we, with 129 members, follow that example proportionally, the numbers attending the themed question times will be extremely small. We will have to watch that carefully.

When I gave evidence to the Procedures Committee, I talked about the grouping of questions. Questions on the same topic are more likely to occur in a themed question time and it is possible that several people will ask exactly the same question. It would make a lot of sense if the Presiding Officer could group those questions together so that the members and the minister did not have to repeat the same formal questions and answers before dealing with the supplementary questions and answers. I should add that only those questions that were likely to be called should be so grouped. I do not know whether the standing orders will allow that to happen, but, if not, perhaps they should be reconsidered.

I am beginning to change my mind about what I said to the committee about having a 20-minute general question time tacked on to the beginning of the themed questions. Members might not lodge questions because there would be little chance of their question being selected. Moreover, a problem might arise with invidious comparisons being made between the two forms of question time.

I liked Mr Sheridan's point about being able to see in the chamber who has indicated a desire to ask a question or speak in a debate. I do not know whether that could be done with lights above the desk or whether the Presiding Officer's screen could be writ large somewhere in the chamber—I have never seen that screen, but I assume that, in this open and accessible Parliament, there are no secrets on it. However, I would hesitate at this stage to make a change that might add a further £100 million to the cost of Holyrood.

Phil Gallie suggested extending the hours of plenary meetings. We will come under pressure to do that, if for no other reason than that we will soon be sitting in an extremely expensive and flashy new chamber and, if the public get the impression that that is being used only one and a half days a week—the new chamber will not be used for committee meetings, unlike this one—we will be exposed, justly, to some criticism.

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill)

As an old hand in procedures debates, I reassure Iain Smith that the turnout this morning has been quite good. I have painful memories of an occasion on which we were so short of speakers that the Presiding Officer sent a clerk to ask me if I would like to speak. I agreed to do so, thinking that I would have a few minutes in which to scribble some notes, but heard my name being called as soon as the clerk had turned to walk away. I ended up having to stand and waffle for five minutes. Even more worrying was that no one seemed to notice. However, perhaps we can improve the nature of procedures debates in future; certainly, a lot of interesting points have been made that will be taken up in future.

I acknowledge the work that has been undertaken by the convener and members of the Procedures Committee in producing such a comprehensive and creative set of reports. The Executive has welcomed the opportunity to contribute as the committee has considered the various issues that are under discussion this morning.

I will mention first of all and briefly the report on emergency bills, which, as members know, considers the technical aspects of rule 9.21 of standing orders and suggests some changes to improve the emergency bill process. The Executive is happy to welcome those changes; they seem to make sense and will improve our procedure.

The Executive also supports the committee's report on oral questions in the chamber and the recommendations contained therein. We have welcomed the opportunity to contribute to those discussions during the inquiry and our views on the committee's recommendations are already well documented through the memorandum that was submitted to the committee last October and the oral evidence that I gave to the committee in November.

The Executive endorses the committee's recommendation that the format of First Minister's question time should remain largely unchanged for the moment. One reason why the Executive and the First Minister were keen to extend FMQT from the 20 minutes that we used to have to 30 minutes was the recognition that back benchers did not always get an adequate share of the time that was available for questions and that, coming into the new session after the election, we had a different political situation in which the leaders of smaller parties also had to have an opportunity from time to time to ask questions. We are pleased to note that experience to date shows that the current 30-minute format seems to work well, enables more time to be given to back benchers and seems to allow us to get through all six of the questions that have been selected.

We also note the committee's suggestion that Executive question time should be extended to an hour and its recommendation of the introduction of a thematic element involving 40 minutes of in-depth questioning on a departmental rota basis. We welcome those proposals and the opportunity that they will give for back-bench scrutiny of Executive ministers and their policies. That is a good step forward and will improve ministerial accountability in a transparent and open way, which is one of the things that the Parliament is about. However, the Executive recognises and supports the need for the thematic system to be introduced—if we agree to that today—initially on a trial basis, as the committee proposes. That is the right way forward and it is right to subject the trial to a review after a period of time, as in the case of First Minister's question time.

We also support the committee's recommendation to move the lodging deadline for questions to 4 pm on a Tuesday. That will have the benefit not only of giving Executive officials enough time to undertake the necessary research to prepare answers, but of allowing the chamber desk staff ample time to process the questions. We are happy to work constructively with the Parliament in taking forward any revised procedures that are agreed today.

On the format of Executive question time and First Minister's question time, as discussed in the committee's reports, the Executive notes that, following an initial trial period, the committee now recommends that FMQT should remain at 12 noon on Thursdays, at least for the time being. We also note that Executive question time, in its revised format, with the thematic element, should start earlier—at 2 o'clock on the same day. Although we recognise that the average viewing figures for "Holyrood Live" have declined since FMQT was moved to an earlier time slot, we are pleased to note that there have been compensations, as other members indicated, in that the current timing has enabled more school pupils and other visitors to attend.

Phil Gallie (Conservative, South of Scotland)

That might be all right for people who live in the central belt, but it has made matters worse for people who live in South Ayrshire, Aberdeen or Argyll—the new timing does not suit them.

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill)

I fail to see how the change can possibly have made matters worse. We still have a question time on a Thursday afternoon and we now have a question time in the morning as well, so there are two opportunities for people to come along. Moreover, it is fair to say that people are coming from around the country to be able to observe one or other of those question times.

Karen Gillon (Labour, Clydesdale)

The minister will be aware that, in our report on oral questions in the chamber, we have a breakdown of where people who were in the public gallery at a particular time came from. We found that 33 per cent of them came from outwith the central belt, compared to 32 per cent from Edinburgh and elsewhere in the central belt.

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill)

Karen Gillon makes exactly the point that I wanted to make to Mr Gallie—I hope that he will acknowledge what she has said. The change has been important.

Jamie McGrigor (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

On that point—

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill)

No, we have taken enough on that point.

I also want to come back to the point that Alex Neil made. I do not want to compare constituency and list members, because he is a bit touchy on that subject, but Labour members were slightly surprised, because we do not get to see daytime television very often—perhaps that is because we are constituency representatives, but we will not go there—and absolutely delighted to hear that Des McNulty was such a draw on daytime television. Somebody has said to me that Alex Neil was not talking about that Des, but never mind.

Alasdair Morgan made exactly the right point: First Minister's question time and Executive question time will never attract the kind of audience that some of the more tabloid-type programmes attract. That is because people do not engage with politics in the same way as they engage with some of the other broadcasts that they see on their televisions. However, we all have a responsibility to make the process work and to participate in a way that will encourage interest.

Jamie McGrigor (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

I appreciate what the minister says about "I'm A Celebrity ... Get Me Out Of Here!", but the point is surely that, although there is allegedly apathy about politicians, we had an average audience of 46,000, which we have managed to reduce to 18,000. The audience figure was, in fact, as high as more than 100,000 on occasions, so I cannot see what the argument is. Fewer people are now seeing our Parliament and there is less access to it, which must be against the founding principles.

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill)

It is important to remember that the last figures for FMQT before it was moved had built up over four years. The number of people who now watch question time in its revised slot probably represents a fraction of the number of people who will watch it four years from now. We must take all those points into consideration, but I am also keen to encourage people, particularly young people and those visiting our education centre, to come into our public gallery and have the opportunity to see question time.

We also support the earlier start time of 2 pm for Scottish Executive question time. It is important that we avoid cutting into debating time in the afternoon, as we all know the difficulties that we will face in providing enough time for back-bench speakers if afternoon debates are curtailed any further.

As we noted in our formal response to the committee, the Executive endorses the recommendation that the new format of question time should itself be the subject of a trial, which should run in tandem with an extended trial period for FMQT at noon. We also endorse the committee's conclusion that both trial periods should be reviewed before the summer recess, when a full assessment can be made of the best arrangements to adopt for the future.

We look forward to working with the Procedures Committee in its deliberations in future and thank it for its constructive reports.

Karen Gillon (Labour, Clydesdale)

I will try to pull together the various points that have been raised in the debate and address some of the questions and comments that have been made.

Donald Gorrie, who seems to have left the chamber, asked about emergency bills meeting the tests for legislative competence. Obviously, before any emergency bill was introduced, it would have had to have met those tests and would require a Presiding Officer's statement on legislative competence, as any other bill would under rule 9.3.1. Moreover, after it was passed, an emergency bill would be subject to the same challenge as any other bill. I hope that that provides reassurance.

Mark Ballard and other members asked whether there should be a rule on ministerial answers. We discussed that issue in some detail—it is addressed in paragraphs 89 to 92 and 97 of our second report of 2003. The main objection to a rule on ministerial answers is that it could give rise to a substantial number of bogus points of order—it is a bit ironic that one of the members who raised the issue was Phil Gallie, who, I believe, has raised the greatest number of bogus points of order in the Parliament over the past four years. A rule on ministerial answers could also give rise to confusion. The Presiding Officer has said that such a rule is not necessary, so we should allow him to continue to employ the measures that he has used. Obviously, if ministers do not make progress on the issue, we can review the matter in the months to come.

Tommy Sheridan made an interesting point about the transparency of the procedure for selecting supplementary questions. However, that issue is perhaps more for the parliamentary authorities than for the Procedures Committee. Perhaps more detailed consideration could be given to the use of information technology. An interesting suggestion was made that the lights on members' desks could be used to show who was requesting a supplementary. However, having watched question time from the other side when I was on maternity leave, I know that people who watch the proceedings on television do not get a span of the chamber but see only individual MSPs. The lights suggestion would certainly be helpful for people in the public gallery, but it would not work for television audiences.

Alasdair Morgan suggested that questions should be grouped together. However, the Presiding Officer has said that such a power would not be useful to him because he does not think that he should have that kind of scope.

Alasdair Morgan (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

Will the member take an intervention?

Karen Gillon (Labour, Clydesdale)

I will finish what I was saying before I let Alasdair Morgan intervene.

Over the past few weeks, the Presiding Officer has shown that, when the list of questions contains two questions on the same topic, he is able to group the questions by allowing the question that is further down the agenda to move up. That removes the subsequent question from the timetable and allows further questions to be asked. I appreciate that that is not the exactly the kind of grouping that Alasdair Morgan wanted. Perhaps we will need to return to the issue in the months ahead, once we see how the new themed question time progresses.

John Swinburne highlighted the poor attendance of members in the chamber. We all bear responsibility for that. If we were not involved in this morning's debate, would we be here? Given the analogies that have already been made, I think that it is more likely that we would say, "I'm a politician ... get me out of here." However, it is important that we have these debates.

Tommy Sheridan (SSP, Glasgow)

Notwithstanding those comments, does the member accept that there must be an understanding that much of the most valuable work that MSPs perform is done not inside the chamber but in the office, on the phone or writing letters on behalf of constituents?

Karen Gillon (Labour, Clydesdale)

I was about to make that point. We need to make choices about where we spend our time. Members attend debates in the chamber when they have a particular constituency or portfolio interest, but they also do a lot of valuable work outside the chamber. It is probably a bit of a fallacy to believe that members work only when they sit on these benches. Members probably do more work when they are elsewhere.

Phil Gallie (Conservative, South of Scotland)

We meet in plenary session for only nine hours a week, so we have many other hours in which to do other work. Unlike at Westminster, this Parliament's procedures do not allow committee meetings to overlap with plenary meetings. In the main, members should surely be able to do their work outside the plenary sessions.

Karen Gillon (Labour, Clydesdale)

The matter is for individual members, who must look at what they do and how they spend their time.

Tommy Sheridan asked that the Procedures Committee be non-party political. I am sure that some might argue that we have not managed even to be political over the past six months. It would be wrong to say that we should be non-political—we are all political animals—but our committee has tried to operate in a non-partisan way and will continue to do so.

Finally, having already spent a lot of time on the issue, I find it sad that the timing of First Minister's question time has dominated today's debate. I feel that the jury is still out on the issue. Any change will require some time to bed in, but sufficient time has not been given for the change. Perhaps the Procedures Committee could be criticised for having set far too short a timescale in which to see whether the new arrangement would work. We should perhaps have allowed a longer trial period so that we could get a true reflection of what was happening. Members have raised genuine concerns about the timing of FMQT, but we will address those before the summer recess by examining the evidence that is available.

I do not buy some of the Tory arguments, which seem to amount to, "My man is not getting on the telly, so I don't like it and want to change it." If David McLetchie cannot make points that catch the 1 o'clock news headlines, that is not our responsibility but his. The Tories need to consider those issues.

Phil Gallie said that only people in the central belt can visit the chamber. He should tell that to the people from Crawford Primary School. Previously, they could not possibly have attended First Minister's question time in the chamber, because they would not have been able to travel the two and a half hours to be in time for their bus home.

Phil Gallie (Conservative, South of Scotland)

Crawford is only an hour away.

Karen Gillon (Labour, Clydesdale)

If Phil Gallie can get to Crawford within an hour, he must be breaking the law.

The new time for FMQT has encouraged a much wider range of people to visit the chamber for both the morning and afternoon sessions and it has doubled the possibilities for people to view question time. If Executive question time cannot exist in its own right, that is not an issue for First Minister's question time. We are here not to create an atmosphere, but to scrutinise the Executive. That can be done in all sorts of ways.

We need to allow the new arrangements to bed in and to work through. I am happy to return to the issue before the summer recess. If we have got it wrong and if the arrangements are not working after that time, I will put up my hands and accept that. If people are still not convinced, we can then move FMQT to whatever time the Parliament thinks is best. However, we need to be honest and allow time for a serious trial. I ask the Parliament to support the recommendations in the Procedures Committee's reports.

Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc) Bill

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

The next item of business is consideration of motion S2M-838, in the name of Cathy Jamieson, on the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc) Bill, which is UK legislation, and one amendment to that motion.

Hugh Henry (Labour, Paisley South)

Members will be aware that, last week, the Justice 2 Committee considered a Sewel memorandum on the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc) Bill in respect of trafficking for non-sexual exploitation.

Human trafficking is an abuse. It is a repugnant business that not only abuses the human rights of the victim but reflects on society as a whole. It is modern-day slavery. It is hard to imagine that a situation that we thought had ended in the 19th century with the abolition of the slave trade still flourishes today.

Slavery was an overt and profitable trade, but I am sorry to say that slavery in the form of trafficking for exploitation still exists in today's so-called progressive and modern society. Trafficking is a hidden and profitable operation, but it undermines the values we place on human lives and freedom. It is organised crime of the most abhorrent kind.

At the meeting of the Justice 2 Committee, I set out the reasons why we believe that the measures on trafficking in the UK bill should be welcomed and should be implemented in Scotland. I also explained why, as that is the only area of the bill that relates to devolved matters, only those provisions form part of the Sewel process.

The recent tragedy at Morecambe bay, which resulted in the deaths of 19 cockle pickers, has again highlighted the need for tough legislation on this matter to deter organised crime from targeting vulnerable people. Therefore, I have no hesitation in moving the motion.

I move,

That the Parliament endorses the principle of creating a new offence to combat trafficking in human beings for non-sexual exploitation as set out in the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Bill and agrees that the provisions to achieve this end in Scotland which relate to devolved matters should be considered by the UK Parliament.

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

I understand that Bill Aitken does not wish to move amendment S2M-838.1.

Bill Aitken (Conservative, Glasgow)

That is indeed the case, Presiding Officer.

We agree with the substantive matter of the bill—which my colleague Phil Gallie will deal with directly—but we had an issue with the wording of the Sewel motion. The Minister for Parliamentary Business has agreed to reconsider the issue. On that basis, I am quite relaxed about the motion, so I will not move the amendment.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

I preface my remarks on the Sewel motion by asking members to note that the Ay family, who spent 13 months incarcerated at Dungavel, yesterday lost their appeal for asylum in Germany. They are now set to be deported to Turkey, which is not only a country that is known for its repression of Kurds but one in which the four Ay children have never set foot. The plight of that family is a human rights disgrace. I take this opportunity to ask the minister to intervene by asking the Home Office that the family be given discretionary leave to return to, and remain in, the United Kingdom.

I oppose today's Sewel motion not so much for what it says as for what it does not say. The only clause in the bill to which the motion refers is clause 4, which creates the offence of trafficking people for exploitation. I support that clause, whose importance is hard to overstate, especially in the wake of the Morecambe bay tragedy last week, as the minister said. Although many parts of the bill are, strictly speaking, reserved, they will have an enormous impact on devolved responsibilities. Therefore, it is wrong that the Scottish Parliament is not having a full and substantive debate followed by a vote on those matters that are of central importance to our Parliament.

Overall, with one or two exceptions—clause 4 is one of the exceptions—the bill is an odious and draconian piece of legislation. Two provisions stand out in particular, both of which have implications for devolved matters.

First, clause 11 will deny asylum seekers whose claims are turned down the right to seek judicial review in the Scottish courts. In light of Amnesty International's findings earlier this week that up to one in five asylum decisions are wrong, it is beyond doubt that removing the right of judicial review will result in thousands of people being unjustly deported every year.

I refer members to an example from my case load. A Kosovar woman's claim for asylum was turned down because of a mistake—not her mistake, incidentally—on her application form about the nationality of the soldiers who raped her.

She was able to go to court to have that mistake rectified and to be granted the right to remain in the United Kingdom. If the bill had been in force at the time of that woman's case, she would not have had the right to go to court. She would have been returned to Kosovo to almost certain persecution. That highlights the unjust nature of the bill. It is a denial of the due process of law and of human rights. As it concerns the jurisdiction of the Scottish courts, it should be the business of the Parliament.

Clause 7 allows for the withdrawal of benefits from failed asylum seekers with children. At the moment, asylum seekers whose claims are turned down will still receive asylum support if they have children under the age of 18. That will no longer be the case if the bill comes into force, which will inevitably result in children being removed from parents who can no longer provide for them—something that David Blunkett has shamelessly trumpeted as a good thing. Since child welfare is clearly devolved, it is hard to see how Westminster can pass that part of the bill without the consent of the Scottish Parliament. Given that it was the Scottish Executive that used the desirability of keeping families together as a justification for jailing children at Dungavel, it beggars belief that it is now prepared to sign up to a bill that will have the result of ripping families apart.

The Scottish Parliament will fail in its duty if it passes the Sewel motion as it stands without a full and substantive debate on the matters that impact so centrally on our devolved responsibilities.

Phil Gallie (Conservative, South of Scotland)

Nicola Sturgeon began her comments by describing the bill that is passing through Westminster as "odious". That was the very word used by people such as Jack Straw when the Conservative Government introduced asylum legislation. They saw that legislation as being odious, so much so that, in 1992, Labour proposed an immigration bill that would set aside many of the Conservative proposals and actions. Here we go again with another immigration bill, but this time we are injecting back in some of the Conservative ideas in practical recognition of the problems that we have with illegal immigration and asylum seeking. We close our eyes to reality if we try to clamp down on passing such legislation. The Government is doing the right thing by trying to address the issues in the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc) Bill.

Following the disaster at Morecambe bay earlier this week, we have to state that that kind of thing should not be allowed to happen. We must apply controls and we can do that only by applying strict immigration and asylum rules. It might be that some members want to drop all immigration rules to allow free access to whoever wants to come in to the country. That would be a legitimate argument. However, we have to ensure that there are laws in place that will allow the Government to control immigration at present.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

Does Phil Gallie agree that there are strict controls on who gets to come in to the country? We talk constantly in the chamber about a declining population and skills shortages, but perhaps we should look at how to bring skilled people into the country instead of trying to keep them out. I suggest to the member that if the bill goes through and its measures are implemented, there will be more and more illegal immigrants in the country and the kind of tragedy that we saw at Morecambe bay last week will be more likely to happen.

Phil Gallie (Conservative, South of Scotland)

Nicola Sturgeon is an enthusiastic member of the European Union. Under its rules and through the extension of the European Union, we find greater opportunities for people with skills from other parts of Europe to come into the United Kingdom. However, there is still a limit on how many people the United Kingdom can sustain. We must take one step at a time. Rules already exist to allow skilled workers to come here if they take the legitimate approach and do not try to avoid our immigration rules and regulations. We have already covered those points. We can expand our work force where necessary under the existing system. We cannot allow people to cheat that system. Those people avoid the regulations and in so doing deprive people in other countries who want to come here legitimately. By condoning their actions, we prevent legitimate workers from coming from other places.

On this Sewel motion, we will support the Scottish Executive in passing on responsibility for Scotland's affairs to Scottish MPs at Westminster, who will ensure that our interests are guarded when the issue is debated there.

Margaret Smith (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh West)

The bill was discussed in the Justice 2 Committee. My colleague Mike Pringle sits on that committee, but he is at a funeral this morning so it is unfortunate that members have me instead of him.

The debate is topical given the events at Morecambe bay last week. Incidentally, a few months back, similar people were working on Cramond beach in my constituency and were apprehended by the police. That kind of situation is happening not a million miles away from where we stand today.

The events of last week have opened the lid on trafficking, the international gang masters and the crime lords who are behind that misery and exploitation of human beings. Such criminals exploit people's dreams as much as anything else. We have an obligation to do everything that we can to tackle the problem.

I support the points made by the minister about the Sewel motion—we have to fulfil our obligations not only as part of the United Kingdom, but in the EU and by upholding the United Nations trafficking protocol. There is unanimous support in the chamber for doing that and, by passing a Sewel motion, we will ensure that Scotland does not inadvertently become a safe haven for such a miserable trade and that those who profit from it will not see Scotland as a soft option.

However, yet again we come to the thorny issue of Sewel motions and the discontent with how they are dealt with. The Procedures Committee should look at the matter. Some of the discontent is purely political in that the nationalists believe that the Scottish Parliament should deal with all matters. That is a respectable position, albeit not one with which I agree.

At the Justice 2 Committee, Nicola Sturgeon and Jackie Baillie commented on the devolved background to these reserved matters and on the points that the Law Society of Scotland raised about the jurisdiction of Scots law vis-à-vis tribunals. More important, Nicola Sturgeon talked again today about clause 7, which states that support for families whose claim for asylum fails will be withdrawn, which will have an impact on the children of those families. That may be a reserved matter but, as Professor Kathleen Marshall said in The Herald yesterday, although there are reserved matters, there are no reserved children.

We have a duty of care to ensure that children who live in Scotland have their welfare taken care of. I hope that the minister will pass on the concerns that have been raised during the debate and in committee about those matters. Although they are reserved, they have devolved dimensions. I hope that he will take my comments in good faith. I believe that the issue is of concern to us all. The procedure perhaps points up again our difficulties with Sewel motions, even though the current one works to the benefit of people by ensuring that we close a UK loophole.

Linda Fabiani (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

Margaret Smith ably outlined the problems with Sewel motions in the Scottish Parliament, so I will not dwell on that issue. However, I will dwell on the huge impact on the Scottish Parliament's areas of responsibility of aspects of the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc) Bill that we will allow to slip through Westminster.

Public services in Scotland will be affected by what David Blunkett does down in Westminster. We should be discussing the issues that will affect not only services in Scotland such as the police, social work, children's hearings, education and health, but the Children (Scotland) Act 1995 and the welfare of children. If we allow Westminster to take all the decisions, we will be allowing our local authorities to neglect their duties of responsibility for children.

Phil Gallie (Conservative, South of Scotland)

I thank Linda Fabiani for giving way. She is right to say that Westminster legislates on many of the issues to which she referred. However, Europe probably has a greater influence over such issues. She complains about Westminster's influence, but how does she feel about Europe's?

Linda Fabiani (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

Mr Gallie knows how I feel about that issue. My view is plain and straightforward: Scotland should be independent in Europe and should be able to influence European decisions.

I am glad to see that the Executive has taken some responsibility for asylum seekers and refugees in Scotland. About £1.5 million has been spent on support services in Glasgow since the dispersal programme started and a further £1 million is budgeted for it. That is proof of our taking responsibility in Scotland for asylum seekers. However, the fact that failed asylum seekers are being evicted in our communities shows that we should take more responsibility for such people. The Scottish Refugee Council estimates that around 50 per cent of the asylum seekers that we are evicting in Scotland are unable to return to their own country of origin—China being a case in point—even if they wanted to.

We are making people destitute and telling them that although we know that they cannot return to their own countries, we no longer have any responsibility for them. To salve our consciences, we tell them that we will take their children if they have any. Meanwhile, we tell the adults, "Away you go and sleep rough." If our next generation of rough sleepers are likely to be failed asylum seekers, how can we say that we do not want to take full responsibility for asylum seekers in Scotland? How can we say that we will hand over, by the method of a Sewel motion, all the responsibility to Westminster?

I turn now to the issue of Dungavel, which demonstrates another responsibility that we shirk badly in Scotland. Margaret Smith made the point that we have no reserved children; we do not and should not have such children. However, we are allowing children who are locked up in our country to be the responsibility of the Home Office rather than the responsibility of the Scottish Parliament. We allow the local authority in which Dungavel is located, South Lanarkshire Council, to have discussions with the Home Office about the welfare of children in Dungavel, but individual MSPs are told, "If you want to know anything about it, away and ask the Home Office because the Scottish Executive is taking no responsibility." That is a huge anomaly, as are all the different aspects of immigration and asylum for which we refuse to take responsibility. That is why the Scottish National Party opposes the Sewel motion. Our position is plain and straightforward. We will continue to oppose Sewel motions until members waken up to their responsibilities.

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

As I have said previously, the Scottish Green Party has serious concerns about the process of Sewel motions. We want a more satisfactory arrangement to be put in place before serious mistakes are made because of the extremely poor level of scrutiny that is possible at the moment. However, we do not oppose Sewel motions in principle. When we oppose them, we do so for specific reasons. I have three major areas of concern about the issue in the Sewel motion that is before us, two of which were mentioned earlier by Nicola Sturgeon. However, there are three aspects of the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc) Bill that the Scottish Parliament should be able to examine in detail.

First, I want to deal with clause 7, which is about the removal of support from families with children. That is already a deeply disturbing issue in Glasgow and elsewhere. Scores of households are being turfed out on to the street with no form of support. In the jargon of the Home Office, they become non-returnables. However, we are talking not about empty bottles but about human beings with vulnerable families who are seeking help. We have a responsibility for them, but the bill will inflict destitution on more of those people. The welfare of children is a devolved issue and I believe that there is strong public support for the Scottish Parliament to take a humane approach to asylum seekers, who include people for whom protection from exploitation and trafficking is necessary. Therefore, we must consider the impact that the whole bill will have on such victims.

Secondly, I want to speak about clause 11, which Nicola Sturgeon also mentioned. Senior figures in the legal field have already raised their voices against clause 11, which removes the right of appeal from asylum seekers and gives the proposed asylum and immigration tribunal immunity from our courts. Given the shockingly poor record of decision making in asylum cases, it seems lunacy to allow our courts to be circumvented in that way.

Thirdly, I want to mention the impact that clause 2 will have on the victims of trafficking. That was the main theme of an amendment that I had hoped to move in the debate. Clause 2 will create a new criminal offence of entering the country without valid immigration documents. That is something that would be true of the vast majority, if not all, the victims of trafficking. Again, ministers will no doubt argue that that is an immigration issue and is therefore reserved. However, surely the creation of a new criminal offence should at least be debated in the Scottish Parliament. Moreover, the potential impact of the creation of the new offence on victims of trafficking could be grave. Even if they were guaranteed immunity from prosecution for undocumented entry, many would be deterred from seeking support and protection from exploitation.

Therefore, the motion in front of us today examines only one tightly defined aspect of the bill. Until we have the opportunity to examine the bill's wider measures and to consider how they will impact on people in need of protection from trafficking and exploitation, I cannot support a Sewel motion on the bill. To do so would be to wash our hands of issues such as the welfare of children in Scotland, the role of the Scottish courts and the criminalisation of innocent people in Scotland. We can have no faith that the UK Government and its neutered Parliament will act in the best interests of the vulnerable in such issues. Their record on asylum seekers is one of authoritarianism and draconian treatment. The bill's wider measures are just the latest example of that. We cannot trust the UK Parliament or Government to act in the best interests of asylum seekers, so we cannot give them our consent to do so.

Frances Curran (SSP, West of Scotland)

The Scottish Socialist Party also intends to oppose the Sewel motion on a number of grounds. First, we are not in favour of giving David Blunkett any more powers than he has already. It is clear that every time he opens his mouth, he makes another attack on human rights. Helena Kennedy, who is a Queen's counsel, a Labour supporter and, I think, a signed-up member of the red rose club, said last week or the previous week that David Blunkett is an authoritarian. The evidence to support that statement is clear, not only from asylum issues, which I will mention in two minutes, but from other issues. For example, David Blunkett introduced a major extradition treaty between America and the EU, kept it secret until two days before he signed it and allowed little or no scrutiny of it in the Westminster Parliament. Under his new proposals, which Helena Kennedy was talking about, he wants terrorism suspects to be tried in secret by vetted judges with no jury and without even seeing the evidence against them.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

Frances Curran mentioned the proposed new terrorism laws. Is she aware of the fact that right now in Belmarsh prison there are a number of suspected—and I stress the word "suspected"—terrorists, who have been held there without charge or trial for two years? It is Britain's own Guantanamo bay. Will she join me in condemning that?

Frances Curran (SSP, West of Scotland)

Absolutely. Of the 529 people who have been arrested as suspects on terrorism charges, only two have been convicted. I think that that speaks for itself.

It must be quite a day when it is the Tory shadow Home Secretary who accuses the Labour Home Secretary of throwing away the very freedoms that we are fighting for. Such is the respect that David Blunkett and the Government have for the laws on asylum issues that he has frequently been found guilty in the courts of breaching the rights of asylum seekers by denying them food, support and shelter. What is his response to those so-called independent courts that have found him guilty? Does he put his hand up and say, "Guilty as charged"? No, he disnae. He says, "The judges are too liberal. I'm right and the courts are wrong." We are being asked to hand over the rights on this bill—and I agree with Nicola Sturgeon that the whole bill is odious—and on the specific issue of trafficking to the Labour Government and to David Blunkett in particular. It is a mistake for this Parliament to hand over those rights without making any kind of criticism.

We have had the tragedy in Morecambe bay, but it is clear that passing the bill and establishing the new offence of trafficking are like trying to deal with the issue by aiming at the dartboard and hitting the wall. It has emerged in the past few days that the immigration office was contacted and already had powers to deal with the gang masters in Morecambe bay, but chose not to use them. So why are we giving the immigration service more powers? This Parliament will not be party to the debate; we will not even have any say if the Sewel motion goes through.

One thing that would undermine the role of the gang masters and affect trafficking would be allowing asylum seekers to have a work permit and to work legally in this country. That would make a big difference to the illegality of the situation and the vulnerability of those sections of the population. I urge the Government to move in that direction in its discussions with Westminster on the bill, but the Scottish Parliament should be opposing it. It is not a question of a Sewel motion; it is a question of human rights.

Hugh Henry (Labour, Paisley South)

I wondered whether I had come in for the wrong debate at the wrong time, because so many of the speakers have failed to address the issue. It is quite sad that some of the contributions clearly indicate that the speakers do not understand the process in which we are involved.

I have to ask Frances Curran, Patrick Harvie and others whether, if we were to take at face value the power and strength of their arguments, and if we were then to agree to what they suggest and vote down the Sewel motion, we would be able to open up the whole of the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc) Bill for discussion? No, we would not, because it is a UK bill. Whether we should or should not is in fact totally irrelevant as far as today's debate is concerned. We do not have the power. What Frances Curran and Patrick Harvie are asking us to do is to become a revising chamber of the House of Commons, and that is not our function.

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

Will Hugh Henry take an intervention?

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

Will Hugh Henry take an intervention?

Hugh Henry (Labour, Paisley South)

No, I will not, because I have only a couple of minutes.

Those members are asking us to do something that is not competent and is irrelevant. If we listened to Frances Curran or Patrick Harvie, we would not reopen the debate on asylum and immigration. In fact, there would be nothing whatever before this Parliament. We could just walk away from the whole issue.

Hugh Henry (Labour, Paisley South)

Whether members think it a shame or not, the fact is that that is the procedure. The motion is before us today only because we have attempted to address one specific issue. In fact, what we have heard this morning is ignorance compounded by prejudice. Frances Curran and Patrick Harvie clearly do not understand.

I find it incredible that the Greens, the Scottish Socialists and the Scottish National Party, which have all at different times professed concern for organised labour and defending the rights of ordinary people, now find themselves asking us to vote down a motion that will extend protection to exploited workers. We find ourselves in a situation in which they want to deny protection to exploited workers, while the Conservatives are prepared to give some protection to exploited workers. How absurd.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

Will Hugh Henry give way?

Hugh Henry (Labour, Paisley South)

No. Nicola Sturgeon should sit down. If she and other members cannot support the motion, I can only conclude that what she, the Scottish Socialists and the Greens are doing is posturing. They are posturing in the confidence that we will take the decision to give protection to exploited workers. They want to posture and they do not want to take the decision, but they want us to give that protection to organised workers. It is cowardice dressed as principle.

I really cannot imagine a situation in which this Parliament would walk away from those who are being trafficked by criminals in order to satisfy an irrelevant, abstract point raised by other members on issues over which we have no power. Members must make a decision. Are they going to vote to give protection to exploited workers or are they going to turn their backs on those exploited workers? That is the question before members today.

Commissioner for Children and Young People in Scotland

Trish Godman (Labour, West Renfrewshire)

The next item of business is consideration of motion S2M-886, in the name of Scott Barrie, on behalf of the selection panel on the appointment of a commissioner for children and young people in Scotland. I call on Scott Barrie to speak to and move the motion on behalf of the selection panel.

Scott Barrie (Labour, Dunfermline West)

I speak to the motion in my name, as a member of the selection panel, to invite members of the Parliament to nominate Kathleen Marshall to Her Majesty as the first commissioner for children and young people in Scotland. I would like to say a few words about the background and process before I turn to the proposed nomination of Kathleen Marshall.

The act that established the new and independent office of commissioner for children and young people in Scotland came about as a direct result of a recommendation from the former Education, Culture and Sport Committee. I would like particularly to pay tribute to that committee which, under the convenership of Karen Gillon, conducted an inquiry into the need for a children's commissioner in Scotland. Having concluded that such a post should be established, the committee then set about the process of framing a committee bill to that effect and, eventually, of ensuring that that bill was passed.

Although I have for well over a decade been a passionate believer in the need for such a commissioner, others in Parliament are much more recent converts. Indeed, the former convener herself was won over to the idea not by advocates such as I am, but by the persuasive evidence that was given to the committee by children and young people. The Commissioner for Children and Young People (Scotland) Act 2003 was passed by the Scottish Parliament almost a year ago, with the key function of the post being

"to promote and safeguard the rights of children and young people".

In accordance with standing orders, a selection panel under the convenership of the Presiding Officer was, on behalf of Parliament, set up to consider the appointment. The panel consisted of Rhona Brankin, Robert Brown, Ms Rosemary Byrne, Lord James Douglas-Hamilton, Mrs Margaret Ewing and myself, and I would like to take this opportunity to thank those members for their diligence and hard work throughout the sifting and interviewing processes.

The position was advertised in the national press, and I am pleased to say that it attracted a wide range of applications. Given the nature of the post and the views of the committee during passage of the bill, we thought it essential that children and young people be meaningfully involved in the recruitment exercise. The selection interviews were therefore split into two parts: an interview with children and young people and a more formal interview with the selection panel later the same week.

Twenty children and young people from across Scotland were invited to Our Dynamic Earth on Tuesday 13 January. They came from Edinburgh, Fife, Midlothian, Glasgow, Cumbernauld and Elgin, and were aged between 10 and 17. The reason for the involvement of children and young people was to obtain their perception of the candidates' skills, knowledge and attributes and to report back to the selection panel. Their feedback was invaluable and a number of them have come to see the final part of the process today. On behalf of the selection panel, I want to thank warmly all the children and young people who were involved in the process for their valued contributions. [Applause.] I also thank Louise Rose who acted as an independent assessor to the panel and who ensured that we followed good practice during the process.

I turn to the nominee herself. Kathleen Marshall is a well-known and respected advocate of children's rights in Scotland. She is a qualified solicitor and is currently a child law consultant and visiting professor at the centre for the child and society at the University of Glasgow. Her work has addressed many aspects of the lives of children and young people including family matters, education, international child abduction, health, public care, criminal justice and participation in court processes.

I first had contact with Kathleen Marshall back in 1990 when she was the director of the Scottish Child Law Centre. Her invaluable advice and assistance helped me enormously in my work. I know of many other child-care professionals in both the statutory and voluntary sectors who share that view. Her knowledge is extensive and her range of skills is impressive.

I like to think that I come from a strong background of involvement in children's rights. Kathleen Marshall comes from an even stronger background. I have no doubt that she will prove to be an effective and well-respected commissioner who will bring enthusiasm and highly relevant knowledge to the post. I am sure that Parliament will wish her every success.

People like me have waited a long time to see a commissioner for children and young people in Scotland. It is perhaps unfortunate that Wales got in before us, but at least we are ahead of England in appointing our commissioner. On behalf of the selection panel, it is with great pleasure that I move the motion.

I move,

That the Parliament nominates Kathleen Marshall to Her Majesty The Queen for appointment as the Commissioner for Children and Young People in Scotland.

Margaret Ewing (Scottish National Party, Moray)

I will be brief. I am conscious of the clock and Scott Barrie covered many of the points that I would have raised.

It was a great privilege to serve on the selection panel, although I think that we all felt that the task was onerous. We did not take it lightly but applied our minds to it. I want to add my thanks to the young people for the feedback that they gave us and I also thank the Presiding Officer and his staff for the great deal of work that they undertook behind the scenes.

As Scott Barrie pointed out, the idea of having a commissioner for children and young people is not new. Indeed, my Plaid Cymru colleague Elfyn Llywd first floated the idea way back in the 1990s in the Westminster Parliament. That may be the reason why the National Assembly for Wales moved a little bit faster than we did. That said, it is good to see us catch up to Wales and Ireland, where such commissioners exist.

Way back in 1995, Lord James Douglas-Hamilton and I worked together on the Children (Scotland) Act 1995. I think that it was Margaret Smith who referred to that in an earlier debate; if it was not her, I am certain that another member did so. Lord James Douglas-Hamilton steered that act through the Westminster Parliament.

At the time, the Children (Scotland) Act 1995 was seen as a major step forward: members of the Westminster Parliament had wanted such legislation for a long time. It is always possible, however, to improve on previous legislation and I believe that the appointment of the commissioner is a great step forward for Scotland.

I welcome Kathleen Marshall's nomination and I am sure that Parliament as a whole also does so. I hope that we will all be supportive of the motion on her nomination and give our full support and assistance to Professor Marshall as she takes up her onerous task. Certainly, Scottish National Party members support her in the many challenges that we are sure lie ahead.

Karen Gillon (Labour, Clydesdale)

It seems a very long time ago that the then Minister for Children and Education, Sam Galbraith, asked the Education, Culture and Sport Committee to consider whether Scotland required the appointment of a children's commissioner. Scott Barrie said rightly that I was one of the members who was most sceptical about the need for such a post. I had been involved in youth work for many years and was not convinced that simply by creating a post the rights and needs of children and young people would be heard any more loudly. I felt that we would simply be creating another talking shop that would raise false expectations.

The course of the committee's investigation convinced me otherwise. That did not happen as a result of the contributions of the children's organisations: valuable though those organisations' contributions were, they came from only one perspective. I was convinced when I had heard the views and aspirations of children and young people, who said that their desire and belief was that a children's commissioner would enhance the status of children and young people in Scotland and give them a voice at the highest level.

In fact, in the many discussions that we had with children and young people, it became apparent that their hopes and aspirations were often diametrically opposed to those of the children's organisations that represented them. However, what we all wanted was the appointment of a children's commissioner and so began the process of the nomination that we are asked to confirm today. I welcome the nomination of Kathleen Marshall.

Throughout the process, the children and young people to whom we spoke told us that they wanted someone who would speak up for them and who would act as an advocate on their behalf. They said that they wanted someone who would act without fear or favour of any political party or organisation. In the lifetime of work that she has undertaken to date, Kathleen Marshall has shown that she can act in such a role and that she can fulfil the function to the benefit of our children and young people.

Ultimately, it is for the Scottish Parliament to legislate on all issues that are within our competence. We will have to take cognisance, however, of information that the children's commissioner places before us and we will have to take note and often act upon the recommendations that she will bring to the Parliament in her annual reports and in other reports that she undertakes.

Today is an important day for Scotland's children and young people. I pay tribute to all those who were involved in the campaign for a commissioner, particularly to the Evening Times, which set a trend and took up a campaigning role to ensure that the vulnerable children and young people who could be seen every day on the streets of Glasgow would have a voice in Scotland that would last for generations to come. I pay tribute to the Evening Times and to everyone else. I welcome, and look forward to, working with Kathleen Marshall as the commissioner for children and young people in Scotland in the weeks and months that lie ahead.

Robert Brown (Liberal Democrat, Glasgow)

I echo the comments that were made by previous speakers, not least those of Karen Gillon. Considerable credit is due to her Education, Culture and Sport Committee for initiating the bill during the first session of Parliament. It is important to reflect on the fact that the appointment is a parliamentary rather than an Executive appointment. In an appointment of this kind, that extremely important aspect will enhance the independence of the appointment.

As a member of the interview panel, I am bound to say that we were extremely impressed by the high quality and number of candidates who came forward for interview. The fact that Kathleen Marshall came out at the head of the queue, so to speak, as the candidate whom the panel thought would make the most suitable appointment is a considerable tribute to her reputation and work.

Since I became the convener of the Education Committee at the beginning of this session of Parliament, I have spoken to a number of groups and different organisations that are involved in education and young people. It is notable how strong the demand is right among them for the appointment and for the influence that the commissioner can bring to bear.

I heard this morning at a seminar that

"Education is a medium for bringing about change."

The appointment of the children's commissioner is one that should bring about change. I suspect that Kathleen Marshall's views will not always be comfortable for Government, for people in authority or for Parliament. However, they are views that we have not in the past heard as effectively as we might have; they will be views that we will need to hear. The commissioner's views will have a considerable power and influence to bring about important, radical and significant changes in the interests of the children of this country. It is extremely important to have a voice at the highest level in that regard.

The range of issues that will be talked about will be vast and, to a certain extent, unpredictable. No doubt, the issues will include those that relate to the Antisocial Behaviour etc (Scotland) Bill, and children's rights including the right of play. The issues will also include the perspectives of youth organisations, to say nothing of the issue of Dungavel.

At the end of the day, our children are our future. The nomination of the children's commissioner in the form of Professor Marshall is a landmark day in the life of Parliament. On behalf of the Liberal Democrat group and the members of the Education Committee, I have great pleasure in welcoming her nomination today.

James (Conservative, Lothians)

I warmly welcome Scott Barrie's motion and the nomination of Kathleen Marshall, who is a distinguished academic and expert professional in child law and other matters relating to the law in general. She is in a position to make a thoroughly outstanding contribution. Her book "Children's Rights in the Balance" is a significant work, and her expertise in the field with the Scottish Child Law Centre will prove to be invaluable.

As Robert Brown suggested, the standard of candidates who came before the selection committee was extremely high, and selection by the panel was made exclusively on merit. The children's commissioner will undoubtedly have a pioneering role in Scotland. The only other children's commissioner in Britain is in Wales. England has none, so we are leading the way. Perhaps in a few years' time, when England sees the success of what happens here, it may follow in our wake.

As Margaret Ewing suggested, the appointment is a natural progression from the Children (Scotland) Act 1995. I hope that all parliamentary committees and parliamentarians will give the commissioner their full support in providing a higher profile for children's issues and for general subjects that involve greater responsibility for, and involvement by, children.

I welcome the enthusiastic commitment and dedication that Kathleen Marshall has shown on the subject. She said recently:

"Subject to parliament and the Queen endorsing the appointment, I look forward to working with the children and young people of Scotland to make Scotland a better place for all of us. My first priority will be to set up ways in which children and young people can get their issues on the public agenda."

In other words, she will undoubtedly raise their profile, which I warmly welcome.

I wish Kathleen Marshall every possible good fortune in the task that is before her of supporting the best interests of children, whose interests should be paramount at all times.

Peter Peacock (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

It is my pleasure to speak briefly in this historic debate, as others have referred to it, because this is an important stage in the process of appointing within hours Scotland's first children's commissioner.

Like Karen Gillon, I feel that it was a long time ago when, as Sam Galbraith's Deputy Minister for Children and Education, I took part in debates on a children's commissioner in this chamber.

As Parliament is aware, the Executive supported the introduction of the legislation to establish the commissioner for children and young people in Scotland. That legislation provided a fitting end to the first session of Parliament. Like others, I acknowledge the sound work that was done by Karen Gillon and her committee at the time, and also the work of the selection panel, which was mentioned by Scott Barrie.

Parliament agreed that the commissioner should be an independent voice for children and young people in Scotland, therefore the Executive rightly has had no involvement in the appointment process. I should not and will not comment on the individual merits of the candidate who is being nominated, as I cannot prejudge Parliament's decision. That said, if Professor Marshall's appointment is confirmed in the vote, I look forward to working with her to improve the lives of and opportunities for children and young people in Scotland—particularly the lives of the most vulnerable and the most disadvantaged in our society—and to ensuring that we celebrate and recognise the tremendous and positive contributions that children and young people make to Scottish society.

As Parliament is aware, the Executive is committed to improving the lives of our children and young people in a variety of ways that have been the subject of debate in the chamber. However, we are not complacent: more needs to be done to protect and promote the interests of children, and to close the opportunity gaps that exist in our society. I look forward to working constructively with the commissioner in the time to come. The Executive wishes the commissioner well in what will be a challenging, significant and extremely important new role in Scottish public life.

Scott Barrie (Labour, Dunfermline West)

The warm words and the congratulations that every speaker has bestowed on Kathleen Marshall indicate that the selection panel chose the correct nominee for this important yet challenging post. Karen Gillon commented on those who were sceptical about the need for a children's commissioner; those of us who have passionately argued for one for a long time have been vindicated.

The challenges that lie ahead for Kathleen Marshall are immeasurable. She is being entrusted by Parliament to be the independent voice for children and young people in Scotland. Her eking out of that role will mark her in history. It is incumbent upon all of us who voted to pass the Commissioner for Children and Young People (Scotland) Act 2003 to offer her all the support that we can in her job. Although we may not always agree with her—because that is the nature of such things—I know from my previous work with her that she will bring a great deal of knowledge and expertise to the post and I know that she will fulfil her role to the highest standard.

Members have mentioned that Wales already has a children's commissioner and that England—we hope—will follow soon. It is imperative if we are to ensure that the voices of young people and children are heard adequately that we give all possible support to Kathleen Marshall in the coming months.

Linda Fabiani (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

Was Mr Barrie, who headed up the interview panel, as impressed as I was by the way in which the panel agreed that children should have input to the selection process, which set firmly the idea that the role of commissioner is about listening to children and their experiences? Does he agree that it is crucial that the children's commissioner—who is to be appointed by Parliament—listen to the views of children in Dungavel, who are being locked up, sometimes for months at a time, and that the commissioner bring to Parliament the real experiences of the innocent children who are placed in that situation?

Scott Barrie (Labour, Dunfermline West)

I appreciate that Linda Fabiani was not on the selection panel, but I assure her and other members that every single candidate at the formal interview was asked a specific question on Dungavel, which was answered. The panel made its decision based on what candidates said in answer to all questions. I cannot tell Linda Fabiani what happened during interviews, but I assure her that that issue was touched on.

Clearly, it would be inappropriate for me to say how the commissioner will tackle her forthcoming job, but Linda Fabiani is right that in entrusting the children's commissioner role to Kathleen Marshall it is important that we give her all the support that we can, whether or not we agree fully with what she does or does not advocate because, at the end of the day, she will be the independent voice for children and young people in Scotland.

The importance of the post and of the procedure that led to the appointment cannot be overestimated. It should be remembered that the Commissioner for Children and Young People (Scotland) Bill was a committee bill; it was not Executive legislation. That shows the power that Parliament and, more important, Parliament's committees have in framing legislation.

I hope that Parliament endorses unanimously the nomination of Kathleen Marshall at decision time.

George Reid (None, Ochil)

Before we move on to First Minister's question time I welcome to the VIP gallery the Irish Ambassador Daithi O'Ceallaigh. Fàilte gu Pàrlamaid na h-Alba, a Mhaighstir Ó Ceallaigh. His Excellency is in Parliament to present the priorities of his country's presidency of the European Union at a public meeting in committee room 1 at 1.15, which I urge members to attend.

First Minister's Question Time

George Reid (None, Ochil)

We are a little ahead of ourselves, but I think that we are all here, so we will begin.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Scottish Executive's cabinet. (S2F-627)

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

The next meeting of the Cabinet will discuss our progress towards implementing the partnership agreement to build a better Scotland.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

In October, the First Minister said, about the council tax:

"we are running a low-tax policy that"

is

"good for Scottish taxpayers".—[Official Report, 30 October 2003; c 2771.]

Which taxpayers was he talking about when he made those comments?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

I was talking about Scottish taxpayers, funnily enough. Increases in council tax in Scotland last year were significantly lower than increases in England, and increases in council tax in Scotland in recent years have been lower than increases in the years when the Conservatives were in Government. Both those comparisons show that council tax in Scotland is on a lower trajectory, but there are serious issues about efficiencies in spending in local government, to which I am sure we are about to return.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

I do not think that the people of Scotland will be heartened by the First Minister's complacent attitude to increases in council tax in Scotland in comparison with increases south of the border. People in Scotland are paying high council tax bills, of which I will give the First Minister examples. As of today, the lowest council tax and water charge in Scotland will be a significant £1,249 in the Western Isles, which is an increase of 39 per cent since this Government came to power four years ago. In the Scottish Borders the charge will be £1,323, which is a rise of 56 per cent. In the city of Dundee, the charge will be £1,481 and in Glasgow it will be a massive £1,559 for a band D property.

It is scant comfort to those council tax payers that the First Minister hides behind the higher increases south of the border. Does the First Minister accept that the council tax is not a low tax but a high tax, which hurts the poorest the hardest?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

I do not think that there is such a thing as a popular system of taxation or a system that does not hit people in their pocket. However, there are ways in which we ensure that the public services that local authorities in Scotland provide are funded properly; that allows the councils to make their decisions and be held accountable for them locally, whether they are providing for additional activity to challenge antisocial behaviour, as is happening in Edinburgh, or taking decisions in relation to their schools, roads or other public services, as is happening in other parts of Scotland.

The important thing is that we as a Government take our responsibility for those services seriously. That is why we have funded in total free personal care for the elderly. That is why we fund in total the teachers agreement that is revolutionising our classrooms. That is why we fund in total programmes on youth justice that are central to our objectives of challenging antisocial behaviour. In each of those areas, we provide the funding that councils require; councils then have to make decisions on the local services that are required and the taxation that funds them.

Mr Swinney's party was the most vocal in this chamber in advocating the abolition of council tax capping, which reduces central Government control over local authorities. One of the good things that the Parliament has done is to give local authorities a bit more freedom. Councils should exercise that freedom responsibly and they should be held accountable by their electors as well.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

Let us go back to what the First Minister said in October about the council tax, which he described as a "low-tax policy." Throughout local authorities in Scotland, the tax has gone through the roof in the past four years with an average increase of 40 per cent; there have been increases in the Scottish Borders of 56 per cent, in Aberdeenshire of 46 per cent and in Stirling of 44 per cent. Those are significant increases that contradict what the First Minister said about low tax.

The fundamental problem with the council tax is that it is an unjust tax. It is wrong for the First Minister and for me to pay the same council tax as a low-paid worker or a pensioner with a modest occupational pension. In the face of such unfairness and injustice, does the First Minister accept that we need to introduce a system of local taxation that is based on people's ability to pay? Does he accept that we do not need to review the council tax, as he plans to do, but that Parliament quite simply needs to abolish the council tax and to introduce a system that is based on fairness, justice and the ability to pay?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

Our starting point in the discussions is to ensure that all the facts are on the table. The first important fact in all this is that at least 80 per cent of Scottish local authorities' income—that which is spent on public services locally—is funded by national Government and therefore by taxes that are based largely on the ability to pay. There is a direct correlation between income tax as it stands nationally and the funding of local services.

Within the council tax system, there is a substantial system of benefits that could be reviewed in relation to pensioners, but that currently ensures that 25 per cent of all households and 40 per cent of pensioner households receive some benefit. Those who are lowest paid or who have the lowest incomes receive council tax benefits that contribute towards meeting their costs. The system can be reviewed and that will happen in the review of local government finance. However, there must be a tax system to pay for our roads and schools. In my view, that system must share the pain among as many people as possible. Whatever system we come up with at the end of the day should be based not just on ability to pay, but on efficiency, effectiveness and spreading the pain among as many people as possible who benefit from local services.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

Does not the First Minister accept that council tax takes no account of an individual's ability to pay, with the exception of the benefits to which he referred, most of which are reserved matters? Is not the principle that is at stake the importance of the ability to pay? Is not a consensus beginning to emerge in Scotland that the council tax is unfair and unjust and that it should be abolished and replaced by a system that is based on ability to pay? Will the First Minister consider that as part of the review of local government finance?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

Months ago we said that we would examine different systems as part of the review, and that will happen. That will be a good thing, because it will ensure that every alternative to the council tax is subjected to scrutiny. No one should choose a local tax system without taking account of all the facts. No one should choose a local tax system assuming that those who have to pay the tax will be particularly happy at the end of the day. Mr Swinney supports a system in which substantially fewer people would make a contribution, but in which all the people who pay would make a larger contribution than they make at the moment.

It is simply not true to say that a system that is based on the property that people own or rent, with a benefits system that assists 25 per cent of all households and 40 per cent of all pensioner households, is in no way related to ability to pay. Ability to pay is a factor in the council tax, which is one part of an overall taxation system. If the council tax is replaced by a local income tax, there will be administrative costs and money will come out of local services to meet those costs. The Parliament may want to make that choice at some point, but it should do so with its eyes wide open.

David McLetchie (Conservative, Edinburgh Pentlands)

To ask the First Minister when he next plans to meet the Prime Minister and what issues he intends to raise. (S2F-623)

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

I expect to meet the Prime Minister again later this month. Nearer the time, I will decide what issues I want to raise with him.

David McLetchie (Conservative, Edinburgh Pentlands)

I suggest to the First Minister that they discuss the issue of boundaries. Speaking earlier this week in the House of Commons about the plan to have different constituency boundaries for elections to Westminster and elections to this Parliament, Brian Wilson said:

"If, even at this late stage, we do not stop to contemplate the essential stupidity of what is being done, people in Scotland ... will have a long time to wonder how politicians" created such an incomprehensible measure "out of something that should be as straightforward ... as possible."—[Official Report, House of Commons, 9 February 2004; Vol 417, c 1183.]

I think that I have quoted him accurately.

As it was the First Minister's determination to retain 129 members of the Scottish Parliament that got us into this mess, does he agree with Mr Wilson that his position was essentially stupid?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

If we read the whole—[ Interruption. ] If we read the totality of what Mr Wilson said earlier this week, we find that he was speaking in support of the announcement by the Secretary of State for Scotland of a commission that will investigate these matters. I, too, support that decision. I welcome the fact that, perhaps for the first time at Westminster, the Secretary of State for Scotland has agreed to commission an inquiry that will report both to him and to me as First Minister. I look forward to the debates that we will have in the chamber about the issues relating to the work of the commission and about its outcome. However, I have absolutely no regrets about representing the view of the Parliament to the British Government and winning the argument to ensure that the Parliament has stability over the next four years.

David McLetchie (Conservative, Edinburgh Pentlands)

The problem with that statement is that no one outside the chamber believes that the Parliament needs 129 members.

The late Mr Dewar understood the importance of having the same boundaries, which is why the Scotland Act 1998, as it stands, would reduce the number of MSPs to 108. Sam Galbraith—otherwise known as the authentic voice of Scottish Labour—said that there was "nothing magic" about 129. Does the First Minister not agree that it is essentially stupid that Labour politicians are setting up an advisory commission to sort out an unnecessary mess that is entirely of their own making and which is, even at this late stage, perfectly avoidable?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

Not at all. It is absolutely right that we have stability in this Parliament for at least the next four years; it is absolutely right that the number of Scottish MPs at Westminster be reduced following the devolution settlement; and it is absolutely right that the British Government should stick to the principles of the devolution settlement that were voted on in a referendum by the people of Scotland. Those principles should stand and should be adhered to in any new system or in any debate that takes place over the next few years.

It is important that, in this Parliament, we continue to prioritise the issues of improving our schools, improving our health service, improving our transport systems and tackling crime in Scotland—rather than getting involved in the sort of boundary reorganisation and redistribution that Mr McLetchie seems to want passionately, despite the fact that he has only recently become a constituency member. He should make a point of enjoying his next three or so years representing Edinburgh Pentlands, because in 2007 we hope that he will not be there any more.

David McLetchie (Conservative, Edinburgh Pentlands)

I hate to disappoint the First Minister, but I think that that is wishful thinking. We will see.

The First Minister says that he is sticking to the devolution principles, but one of those principles was of a partnership of MPs and MSPs working together. One of the ways of underpinning that principle in the Scotland Act 1998 was to have the same constituencies for this Parliament and for Scotland's other Parliament at Westminster. Instead of having another bureaucratic commission, why do we not do two very straightforward things that would resolve the problem? First, we should stick to the provisions of the Scotland Act 1998, which the First Minister's Government passed; and, secondly, we should scrap the plans to change the voting system for our local councils. Why do we not simply leave well alone—not so much doing less better as, in the First Minister's case, doing nothing brilliantly?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

I thank Mr McLetchie for the compliment in his final word. However, the debate around constituency boundaries and reorganisation is not, and has not been, a priority for the Executive. In my view, it should not be a priority for this Parliament.

The British Government is absolutely right to go for stability here in the Scottish Parliament. I hope that the Scottish Parliament (Constituencies) Bill passes through the House of Commons quickly and without too many incidents. I also hope that, over the coming period, we can have a genuine debate about the way in which the bill will impact on our work as MSPs and—much more important—on our constituents. Ultimately, we are here to serve them. I hope that we will continue to stay focused on the important things—reducing crime, improving our schools and hospitals, and creating jobs.

George Reid (None, Ochil)

We have one important constituency question from Johann Lamont.

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

Meanwhile, back in the real world, the First Minister may be aware of two serious incidents involving firearms in my constituency in the past week. Does the First Minister recognise the concerns of my constituents about those events? The fact that such violence can happen in their neighbourhoods generates an understandable fear. Does he also recognise the dispiriting impact on the people who carry out very good work locally—often voluntarily—to create active and attractive communities?

What action is being taken to tackle the use of firearms by organised criminals? What steps are being taken to deal with the organised criminal elements that may be rooting themselves into communities through businesses such as private security firms, private rented property firms and other local enterprises?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

I am happy to give Johann Lamont assurances. The response this week from the newly appointed director of the Scottish Drug Enforcement Agency made it clear that his organisation will not only continue to target successfully Scotland's biggest drug dealers, but will be prepared to move into the area of targeting the other biggest criminals in Scotland, including those who are responsible for much violent crime, not only in Glasgow but elsewhere. That is very welcome and he will have our full support.

We welcome the British Government's announcements earlier this week that it will move towards having a national serious crime agency that will be responsible for tackling incidents, gangs and criminal activity. We will co-operate fully with that and the SDEA will be fully involved in it.

There is also a responsibility at local level. I know that Strathclyde police and Glasgow City Council are considering the measures that can be taken to tackle not just the outcome of such incidents, but the supply of knives and weapons. Far too many shopkeepers in Scotland sell weapons that should not be on the counter, never mind in anybody's homes. They need to stop doing that, or we will bring in regulations to stop them.

Robin Harper (Green, Lothians)

To ask the First Minister whether, in the light of last week's Scottish Executive report into increased flooding because of climate change and the Natural Environment Research Council's rapid climate change programme predicting a possible cooling down of western Europe because of changes to the Gulf stream, the Executive will give higher priority to reducing emissions that cause climate change and what reduction in such emissions is expected by 2010. (S2F-653)

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

Tackling climate change is a high priority for Scottish ministers and we are working in partnership with the UK Government to meet our Kyoto target.

Robin Harper (Green, Lothians)

If that is the case, how does the First Minister justify his massive, climate-busting road-building programme, which is supported by the Tories and will simply increase traffic levels and climate pollution?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

I justify the road improvement package, because it is part of, first, a much larger package of measures that will improve the Scottish economy—improved transport links of all kinds are vital for that—and secondly, a wider programme of transport improvements, the vast majority of which involve funding for public transport that does not involve roads. In my lifetime—perhaps even in Mr Harper's—there have never been so many new investments in new railway stations, new trains and new public transport developments in Scotland to increase the number of bus journeys, for example.

Public transport in Scotland is on the up and that is very important, not just for our environment but for our economy and for the movement of ordinary people, a large proportion of whom still do not have access to a private car.

Robin Harper (Green, Lothians)

Does the First Minister agree with these words, from Donald Dewar's white paper on transport policy in 1998:

"We acknowledge that the 'predict and provide' approach to roads building is unaffordable, unsustainable and, ultimately, self-defeating."?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

I absolutely agree with that and that is precisely why we are not building new roads willy-nilly throughout Scotland. Instead, we are investing in trains, railway stations and new railways.

The M74 is an exception; it is a vital link if we are to stop what might currently appear to be the terminal decline of the economy of the west and south-west of Scotland. We will turn round that decline by investing in the M74 and in rail links to airports and between that part of Scotland and the rest of Scotland—and the rest of Britain. Those investments in transport will keep business competitive in the west of Scotland and ensure that there are jobs in the area in the years to come. The existence of that specific road-building project is not an indication that new roads will be built willy-nilly throughout Scotland. We will provide new roads where they are required, whether that is around Aberdeen or in the south of Scotland, but we will ensure that there are also public transport options.

Wendy Alexander (Labour, Paisley North)

Given the First Minister's commitment, not only to sustainability but to sustainable growth, will he comment on the fact that we now know not only that growth in Scotland in the most recent four quarters, compared with the previous four quarters, was higher than in the rest of the UK, but that, as the Scottish Parliament information centre confirmed this morning, the growth rate was faster than in Canada, Mexico, Austria, Belgium—

George Reid (None, Ochil)

Back to climate change, please.

Wendy Alexander (Labour, Paisley North)

—Finland, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden and Switzerland? [ Interruption. ] Indeed, if one merely considers the averages, the rate was faster than in the G7, faster than in the European Union 15—

George Reid (None, Ochil)

No, I am afraid that I will have to stop you—

Wendy Alexander (Labour, Paisley North)

—and faster than in the eurozone. Let me come to the question. [ Interruption. ] Does the First Minister agree that it would greatly improve the quality of the debate on the Scottish economy if the Opposition parties could accept that fact—

George Reid (None, Ochil)

I am sorry.

I call Alex Johnstone.

Alex Johnstone (Conservative, North East Scotland)

To return to the original question, does the First Minister accept that the need to cut CO 2 emissions is paramount and that the way in which to achieve that in the short term is to replace electricity generating capacity with nuclear capacity at the earliest possible opportunity?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

I will take both members' points.

The growth area for Scotland in electricity generation in the years to come must be renewables generation. I have seen dismissive suggestions in the media and elsewhere about our ability to tackle that challenge, but in doing so, we will not only improve the environment in Scotland for generations to come, but create jobs from the expertise that we develop and the manufacturing production that takes place.

On the subject of manufacturing production and on the general issue of sustainable growth that Wendy Alexander raised, this week's clarification of the figures is welcome because it makes it more appropriate for us to compare the growth in gross domestic product north and south of the border. However, we should never base our economic strategy in Scotland simply on a comparison between Scotland and England. We should look for economic growth in Scotland, and look to grow that growth, because that is good for Scotland. The challenge that we must take up is to be more competitive than anywhere else in Europe, not just England. Those who seek to make only that comparison and to disparage Scotland at all times are wrong. The Executive's progressive and positive policies will ensure that Scotland grows in the future.

Karen Whitefield (Labour, Airdrie and Shotts)

To ask the First Minister what the purpose is of the Scottish Executive's environmental justice fund and what its potential impact will be. (S2F-628)

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

Our partnership agreement makes it clear that we are committed to securing environmental justice for all Scotland's communities. Ministers are currently looking at the potential for an environmental justice fund that would allow resources to be targeted at a number of communities that have been exceptionally ravaged by the cumulative effects of quarrying, mining and landfill operations.

Karen Whitefield (Labour, Airdrie and Shotts)

I am sure that the First Minister is aware of the great anger that is felt by my constituents in Greengairs, who believe that there is little environmental justice following a Scottish minister's approval of an application for yet another landfill site there. That application has been approved despite the fact that my constituents already have Europe's largest landfill site on their doorstep. Does the First Minister agree that there must be a fundamental review, with environmental justice for all as its guiding principle, of Scotland's planning law? Does he agree that planning conditions must be properly enforced and that resources must be made available to ensure that landfill operators comply with the conditions of planning consents? Will he ensure that representatives from Greengairs and communities like it are involved in the development of the environmental justice fund to ensure that it meets their needs and does not negate developers' obligations? Finally, will the First Minister agree to the reasonable request of my constituents to meet him?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

Ministers will be happy to meet representatives of the Greengairs community. I suggest that that meeting should take place before we finalise any details of an environmental justice fund so that the community can have an input into the framework for the fund. I remind members that we have recently provided resources for North Lanarkshire Council and others to tackle the issues of contamination and decay of vacant and derelict land that require to be tackled.

We plan to launch our consultation document on rights of appeal and planning before the Easter recess. We will ensure that, although the ministers with responsibility for planning are rightly bound by the legal position, which they must ensure is properly implemented, the conditions that are attached to the most recent planning application decision for the area adjacent to the Greengairs community—and those that are attached to other decisions—must be met by the developer and the council in advance of any application being approved. If the conditions are not met, we will want to reconsider the matter.

Alasdair Morgan (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

To ask the First Minister what discussions the Scottish Executive has had with Her Majesty's Government's Department of Culture, Media and Sport in relation to lottery funding for Scottish sport. (S2F-633)

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

There is regular discussion and correspondence on a range of issues, including the lottery and sport, between ministers and officials in the Scottish Executive and the Department of Culture, Media and Sport.

Alasdair Morgan (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

I am glad that those discussions take place. Can the First Minister estimate how much Scottish lottery players will contribute to a successful bid for the 2012 Olympic games to be held in London? Does he agree that the benefits to Scotland of any such bid would be, at best, tangential? Most important, will he guarantee that Scottish sportsmen and sportswomen will not suffer a reduction in funding as a result of that bid?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

As Mr McAveety made clear yesterday in relation to one sport, football, and as the Executive has made clear on many occasions—in relation to support for Scottish sportsmen and sportswomen, support for young people in relation to sport, support for capital expenditure to improve sports facilities in schools, communities and at national level—the Executive will not only maintain current levels of spending on sport in Scotland but increase them in the years to come.

It is the worst kind of Scottish parochialism that would deny young people in Scotland the inspiration and the enjoyment that would come from the Olympics being brought to Britain; those young people could see, on their doorstep, athletics at the highest level and perhaps they would be inspired to take on a career as a competitive athlete or to participate in the sport of their choice. If Scotland makes a contribution towards the Olympic bid and the bid is successful, the benefits for Scotland—if we have ambitions for Scotland rather than resentment towards England—could be substantial. When Sydney won the Olympics, the people of Melbourne did not hide in a corner and cry. They won contracts from the Olympic companies, they attracted tourists from among those who came to Australia, and they got their young people to watch the games and be inspired to take part in years to come. We in Scotland should do the same.

Mary Scanlon (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

To ask the First Minister whether sufficient resources are being allocated to fund free personal care . (S2F-630)

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

Free personal and nursing care is one of the real achievements of devolved government, with more than 40,000 elderly people already benefiting throughout Scotland. It is well funded and we will ensure that it remains so.

Mary Scanlon (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

Given that more than 2,000 patients remain in national health service hospitals, ready for discharge, and given the long wait for occupational therapy appointments and community care assessments in some councils, how will the First Minister ensure that local authorities deliver high-quality, value-for-money care services to many of the most vulnerable people in Scotland?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

There have been further discussions this week involving ministers and representatives of local authorities. Additional funding has been allocated to local authorities, and there should be no need for them to make people wait for those important services.

Health ministers are working on that issue constantly and are ensuring that local authorities have the right level of resources to implement the policy on personal care. Those of us who implemented that policy, put the commitment into action and ensured that the resources were available, increased the cancer budget in Scotland at the same time and increased and improved the facilities that are available for cancer sufferers. We are very proud to have done not just one of those things, but both.

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, Dundee East)

In the light of that comment, perhaps the First Minister will join his Minister for Health and Community Care in slapping down his former colleague, Sam Galbraith, for the disgraceful comments that he made about free personal care. Will the First Minister reassure the Parliament that the views that were expressed by Mr Galbraith are not held by any of his Cabinet colleagues?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

In my short time as First Minister, the Executive has implemented free personal and nursing care in Scotland, fully funded it, and ensured that we have monitored its implementation. At the same time, the cancer budget in Scotland has increased, facilities for cancer sufferers in Scotland have been improved, and the lifespan of cancer sufferers has been increased. I am very proud of that record and I stand by it.

I make a commitment to the chamber that the Cabinet discussions in which I have been involved for nearly five years will, with due respect to my colleagues, remain private. Some of them should be very glad about that.

Mark Ballard (Green, Lothians)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. You used the provisions of rule 13.7 when Wendy Alexander, in a supplementary to a question by my colleague Robin Harper, deviated from the subject matter of the original question. Why, then, did you not use your powers to stop the First Minister when he deviated from the subject of Robin Harper's question in his response to the question from Alex Johnstone?

George Reid (None, Ochil)

Under our standing orders, I am responsible for questions. Supplementary questions must be to the point and must be brief, which is why I zapped Ms Alexander. I am not responsible for answers, but I indicated that the First Minister should hurry on.

I now suspend this meeting of Parliament until—

Phil Gallie (Conservative, South of Scotland)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. In this morning's debate, a suggestion was made that the Presiding Officer should have powers in relation to answers. The Procedures Committee has considered the matter, but it decided not to go ahead with providing the Presiding Officer with such powers. Will you undertake to have further discussions with the Procedures Committee, with a view to taking such powers on board?

George Reid (None, Ochil)

The Procedures Committee has reached its conclusion, as Mr Smith said this morning.

I now suspend this meeting—

Karen Gillon (Labour, Clydesdale)

The reason for the committee's decision was to prevent bogus points of order such as those that we have heard this morning.