Procedures Debate

Ms Wendy Alexander (Paisley North) (Lab): I am a not infrequent speaker in the chamber, but this is the first time that I have spoken in a procedures debate. I was prompted to do so because I thought that the Procedures Committee produced an excellent report on the use of parliamentary time. I will make one contribution to the committee’s final deliberations, which lie ahead.

I start with a brief backwards glance. Members will know that next week marks the sixth anniversary of Donald Dewar’s death. We will recall with affection that this is the sort of arcane procedural debate that he would have positively relished. He would have had a bracing joust with veteran parliamentarians such as Donald Gorrie and Margo MacDonald, who have been members of the Parliament and the House of Commons. I want to hold on to that thought, because the question is whether we have produced a set of procedures that works to help to modernise Scottish democracy.

The challenge was to create a modern, accessible and above all effective Parliament. Members will recall the sceptics who said that we could never make a unicameral Parliament work in a country with a millennium-long history of bicameral Parliaments and those who said that powerful committees stewarding stage 2 could never provide the rigour of a full parliamentary chamber debate. There was also the fear that the legislative boundary between Westminster and Holyrood would prove to be so fuzzy and opaque that effective lawmaking would be all but paralysed. Of course, each of those propositions has been proved to be untrue—straw men from cynics who are best forgotten.

Margo MacDonald (Lothians) (Ind): I am not a straw man, although I confess to having had some concerns that the checks and balances in a unicameral Parliament would have been adversely affected in comparison with what Westminster has. I am partially won over, but we should not pat ourselves on the back too much because the only thing that we have got completely right is the accessibility. We can claim that the Parliament is genuinely accessible, but is it as effective as it might be?

Ms Alexander: I take Margo MacDonald’s point, and I record the fact that I do not think that she could ever be described as a straw woman either.

Today’s Procedures Committee has given us a report with a sophistication that is reminiscent of that of the constitutional steering group. We have before us nine proposals, all of which have merit and which, almost without exception, would strengthen the hand of the legislature vis-à-vis the Executive. That should be welcomed and it moves in the direction that Margo MacDonald hinted at. That is greatly to the committee’s credit. The proposals would strengthen the hand of the chamber and improve the quality of legislation.

Of course, there is always a but. Would we also be improving the quality of deliberation in the chamber? Of the nine proposals that are before us, none would decrease parliamentary time and five suggest that we should spend more time in the chamber. Implicit in the report is a debate about whether the only way in which we can improve the quality of legislation is by expanding the time that is available in the chamber for deliberation. The committee must readdress that in its subsequent deliberations.

If members look around, they will see that almost one in 10 of the parliamentary membership is present. Yesterday, I sat here during the Environment and Rural Development Committee’s debate for which fewer than 20 members were present, even for the opening speeches. That does not reflect well on us collectively.

If we are to address the quality of deliberation, we do not want to get into a sterile argument between the Executive and the Opposition parties with each defending its existing territory. My point is that we need to reconsider the committee debates. They should be better attended, but the truth is that members are voting with their feet. We devote to committee debates double the time that we offer to the Scottish National Party, three times the time that we offer to the Conservatives, and six times the time that we offer to the Greens. Committee debates in the chamber are the least dramatic of parliamentary occasions; often they are held months after the original work in the committee and they do not work in the chamber.

We spend our time urging every other public sector body in Scotland to improve its efficiency; perish the thought that we should exempt ourselves. Perhaps we need to think about how we make our time in the chamber of the highest quality. We should take committee business back to the committees so that they can shine with all the attention that they deserve on the day of report publication and not leave us with the hangover of some dog-day debate in an empty chamber months later. If we do that, we will better serve Scotland’s democracy and raise the quality of legislation, the issue that is addressed by the report and the quality of deliberation in the chamber.

Christine Grahame (South of Scotland) (SNP): I thank Wendy Alexander for a thoughtful speech. For me, this is not a party-political issue. Many of us have been here for seven years and I still have concerns about several things that happen in the chamber, not just about the quality of legislation, although I will come to that, but about accountability to and robustness for members.