Today, for the first time this session, Patrick Harvie had a scheduled question at First Minister’s Questions. That’s almost a year without having a question taken in advance even once, zero out of more than thirty sessions, and it’s pretty inexplicable.
Sure, Patrick and Alison aren’t a massive Parliamentary group, but then neither are Willie Rennie and his four associates.
In May last year, the Presiding Officer wrote to all party leaders explaining how regular access to FMQs would be divided. The letter is at the end of this post. Two weeks out of three, Willie Rennie gets a question.
That’s maybe 20 scheduled questions for him over the first year of this arrangement, given recess. And yet Tricia Marwick also promised we would see “the Green Party being selected from time to time on a roughly proportional basis“.
The maths aren’t terribly hard. Willie Rennie is leader of a group of five, Patrick Harvie is co-convenor of a group of two. If Willie gets 20 shots, the equivalent for Patrick would be to be heard 8 times. Not a mere 1. That, Presiding Officer, is nowhere near “roughly proportional“. This isn’t about more chances for point-scoring or partisanship – the public who voted Green have the same right to have their concerns heard as those who voted Lib Dem, and “on a roughly proportional basis“. Holyrood was established to reflect the diversity of views in Scotland, as partially reflected in our electoral system, and that principle needs to apply to MSPs’ only opportunity to hold the First Minister to account.
While the Green Party is substantially under-represented, it turns out the Christine Grahame party is substantially over-represented. I like Christine – she’s probably the best SNP committee convenor we have right now, for one thing, and she asks pertinent questions too, both with her constituency hat and her convenorship hat on, but the Presiding Officer has essentially turned FMQs into the Christine and Alex show. Here’s her showing since the last election:
- March 2012: Lockerbie
- February 2012: Business in Tweedbank (constituency)
- January 2012: Benefits and child poverty
- December 2011: Access to courts (supplementary)
- December 2011: Double jeopardy
- November 2011: Carloway report (supplementary)
- September 2011: Waverley line (constituency)
- September 2011: STV access (supplementary)
- September 2011: Lockerbie
(Parliament is in recess for July and August) - June 2011: Cadder ruling
- June 2011: Waverley line (constituency)
Since the last election there has been only one month when Tricia Marwick hasn’t called Christine Grahame, not counting the summer recess: October last year (and there were two weeks of recess in October, so only two rounds of FMQs). Seven of those have been scheduled questions. Patrick Harvie has had supplementary questions taken over that period, like this, but the dire new Parliament website has a broken search function and is returning precisely zero results for Patrick at FMQs.
I like the Presiding Officer, even if she’ll probably never speak to me again, and the explanation for this gross disproportionality isn’t clear. But it’s hard not to conclude it’s personal.
Presiding Officer’s letter of 25 May 2011
I am writing to advise you of the decisions I have taken in relation to the future management of First Minister’s Question Time.
There are two important principles that have underpinned my deliberations. Firstly, the prime purpose of First Minister’s Question Time is to hold the Scottish Government to account and I therefore intend to ensure that all of the parties represented on the Parliamentary Bureau are given the opportunity to do so. Secondly, I intend to ensure that backbench Members have a greater opportunity to ask questions of the First Minister, and more prominence when doing so during the half-hour weekly slot.
On that basis, the approach I will adopt is as follows:
* Questions 1 and 2 will follow the same format as in Session 3 (ie, allocated to the Labour Party and to the Conservative Party with four and two supplementary questions respectively).
* Question 3 will be allocated to the Liberal Democrat Party for two weeks out of three. For one week in three, I will select what I consider to be the best quality question from a backbench Member submitted that week, regardless of party.
* Question 4 will be allocated to the SNP and question 5 will be allocated to the Labour Party.
* Question 6 will be allocated equally between the Conservative Party and the SNP with the Green Party being selected from time to time on a roughly proportional basis.
Following the principle of giving backbenchers more scope and prominence, it is also my intention to take questions of a local nature after Question 2 rather than after Question 3 as has previously been the case.
I will, of course, reserve the right to alter the above on any week, depending on the topicality and suitability of the questions submitted.
First Minister’s Questions is, for many, the high point of the parliamentary week and I intend to do all I can to ensure that this session plays its part in holding the Government to account on the issues of the day.
Yours sincerely,
TRICIA MARWICK MSP
Presiding Officer
#1 by James on April 26, 2012 - 12:49 pm
I offered my former colleagues in Parliament’s press office a right to reply but they very politely declined.
#2 by Jeff on April 26, 2012 - 1:09 pm
Spot on James. A long overdue objection.
#3 by Stuart MacLennan on April 26, 2012 - 1:17 pm
I note you’ve managed to overlook the inequity of the Liberal Democrats (5 members) being called two weeks out of three in this session despite the Greens Party of Session 2 (7 members) only being called every other week.
#4 by James on April 26, 2012 - 1:20 pm
Aye, an excellent point. That’s nonsense as well.
#5 by Doug Daniel on April 26, 2012 - 3:09 pm
Surely you know the reason for that one James? In session 2, both the Greens and SSP had enough members to be included in the parliamentary business thingy, thereby entitling them to regular questions, so we had 6 parties vying for a piece of the action. This time, just the 4 (and how annoying it is that the Lib Dems got 5 rather than 4 – that’s the cut off I think). I would like to think that if the Greens had gotten enough MSPs, there would have been complete parity between Paddy and Willie.
#6 by James on April 26, 2012 - 4:21 pm
That’s not how proportionality works. If the PO had said “being on the Bureau gives you more right to answer questions” in her letter or in the right to reply I’d offered, that would be one thing.
#7 by Doug Daniel on April 26, 2012 - 6:44 pm
Surely that’s what she’s saying with the line ” I therefore intend to ensure that all of the parties represented on the Parliamentary Bureau are given the opportunity to do so”? Seems pretty unambiguous to me. Without representation in the bureau, Paddy and Allison have exactly the same entitlement as any other MSP – they merely double the odds of a Green question being asked..
Put it this way: let’s say there are about 100 MSPs vying for “backbencher” questions (128 – SNP ministers and Johann, Ruth and Willie). And let’s say that there are about 40 FMQs per year. That means round about 200 FMQs this session, meaning to be totally proportional, each MSP would be entitled to two questions per session. That means four Green questions in the totality of the parliamentary session – once every 50 FMQs.
Very, very rough numbers obviously, but I would say if we’re talking about proportionality and accepting that the guaranteed questions only extend as far as parties in the bureau, then it’s just about the right time for the first Green question. With that in mind, the only strange thing here is that Christine Grahame gets soooooooooooooo many questions. But then, she can do a better job of holding the government to task than the other parties generally do, and as I witnessed myself at the SNP conference this year, Christine has something to say about pretty much everything! (And in all fairness, what she says tends to be worth hearing…)
HOWEVER!!! While I may think this looks mathematically correct, I don’t agree with the actual premise. I originally thought the idea was that Paddy was going to get the “third” Lib Dem spot, until someone pointed out that it was open to anyone. Considering he is one of the few MSPs on the opposition benches who has the capacity to ask intelligent questions – and the fact he doesn’t go for petty point-scoring – I think FMQs would be substantially improved by giving the Greens a regular scheduled question.
#8 by Indy on April 26, 2012 - 1:27 pm
It’s interesting how often Christine Grahame is called, I wonder if that is because she is the official maverick?
It does seem a bit odd that it is up to the PO who speaks, why can’t they work out a rota or is that too mundane?
#9 by Colin on April 26, 2012 - 1:30 pm
Totally fair points you make throughout, and it does need action by PO.
However, I’m wondering what you mean by ”but it’s hard not to conclude its personal”.
Could you elaborate?
#10 by James on April 26, 2012 - 1:31 pm
Well, I’ve tried to think of another reason and I’ve not got one. Any other options?
#11 by Colin on April 26, 2012 - 1:33 pm
Yes but what do you mean by personal? The PO doesnt like Patrick Harvie?
Also – have you looked at how Margo MacDonald fairs in comparison?
#12 by James on April 26, 2012 - 1:42 pm
While I worked for Patrick there were certainly more than one occasion where she cut him off even during the time for a legitimate (and I know how unusual this is) Point Of Order. I don’t have the figures for Margo, but I’d be curious to see. Obviously the PO doesn’t call you if you don’t ask to be taken, though, and I suspect Margo asks to be taken less frequently than Patrick does.
#13 by Kirsty on April 26, 2012 - 1:48 pm
Margo has had one FMQ this session – on rendition flights. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-14837434
#14 by Iain Menzies on April 26, 2012 - 1:30 pm
I watched FMQ’s today for the first time in AGES. I didnt watch the time, but it seemed like well over half of the time was spent on Wee eck and those two women who i prefer not to think of in too much detail.
I dont tend to have much time for the Squeaker, but he does a much better job of it than Marwick.
On a personal level i dont much care that the greens dont get much of a chance to speak, but you are right, the numbers that they have (2 more than i would like myself) should mean that they are heard more, irrespective of any letters.
You have your preference towards the greens and so its fair enough that you focus the issue there, but I think it is becoming clear that part of the problem with the Scottish Parliament just now is Marwick herself.
#15 by Bill Pickford on April 26, 2012 - 8:58 pm
I take the opposite view – I think it’s a crying shame that the Greens don’t have more MSPs.
Not that I am in love with their manifesto, it’s just that I’d rather listen to a Patrick Harvie question than anything coming from the other three opposionists – at least he can talk without insults and he makes sense.
#16 by Aaron Crane on April 26, 2012 - 1:38 pm
From the point of view of this outsider, the only apparent explanations are personal enmity or professional misconduct, and I certainly wouldn’t like to assume it’s the latter.
#17 by Shave on April 26, 2012 - 2:29 pm
“I will, of course, reserve the right to alter the above on any week, depending on the topicality and suitability of the questions submitted”
Just what does “suitability” refer to?
Obviously, anything libelous or profane is unsuitable but beyond that is it Tricia Marwick’s job to judge? The MSPs are not asking questions in order to represent her. They are asking them in order to represent the concerns of the electorate. It is up to the MSP to best judge what the electorate think is suitable.
Or is it that Patrick swears too much in his questions?
#18 by James on April 26, 2012 - 2:53 pm
Well, with backbench questions, like many of Christine’s, the PO needs to decide or there needs to be a formal rota. Constituency questions allow a local issue of urgency to be raised, so that’s valuable. But parties should get their share, and there’s no need to judge that. If the Lib Dems want to spend the next four years asking Salmond about bananas, that should be between them and their electorate.
#19 by Angus McLellan on April 26, 2012 - 2:47 pm
Definitely a problem that wants fixing. I’d be inclined to see the problem as being the way Davidson and Rennie are treated. It could be that Patrick fucking swears too bloody much or that Trish hates him. But you’ll never go far wrong blaming Willie Rennie where I’m concerned.
#20 by Dr William Reynolds on April 26, 2012 - 4:11 pm
I agree that the Scottish Greens should be given more opportunity at FMQ.The fact that they currently have only 2 MSP’s should be irrelevant.Funnily enough I did watch FMQ today and observed that Patrick Harvie was the only opposition leader that asked a decent question.The others were more interested in personality and insults.As I watched I did think that when comparing Partick Harvie to the appalling performance by Johann Lamont,that Tricia Marwick should ask him to ask questions more often.He was a breath of fresh air.
#21 by James Kay on April 26, 2012 - 6:57 pm
I agree with noting that the Greens should be called more often (and Christine less often); but I disagree with your analysis of your own statement:
“The maths aren’t terribly hard. Willie Rennie is leader of a group of five, Patrick Harvie is co-convenor of a group of two.”
The PO’s letter mentions the Greens only in relation to Question 6, and “roughly proportional” with the Conservatives and SNP. It seems to me that the promise is of 2 chances compared to 83 (68 + 15). Where do you get the comparison of 2 to 5?
If the POs priorities are wrong, then it seems to me that is where your criticism should be directed – not at a failure of arithmetic ability!
#22 by Barbarian on April 26, 2012 - 10:09 pm
I think FMQs is simply a pantomime. Planted questions by the faithful, awkward questions by the awkward squad, with Lotso (see Toy Story 3) standing there all swarmy and not answering questions.
The Scottish equivalent of the posh boys slagging match in Westminster.
#23 by Ross on April 26, 2012 - 10:42 pm
It would be hard to conclude that it’s not personal. During the debate on closing parliament in solidarity with N30 strikers, the PO cut Patrick off 1 minute into a Point of Order. Points of Order are up to 3 minutes long and he was making a valid point. It took a Labour shadow minister to defend him.
He’s been scolded for arriving with little time to spare for debates when other MSPs have not.
As is said above, discounting professional misconduct it would be hardo think it’s anything but personal.
#24 by Richard on April 27, 2012 - 4:15 am
Question 3 will be allocated to the Liberal Democrat Party for two weeks out of three. For one week in three, I will select what I consider to be the best quality question from a backbench Member submitted that week, regardless of party.
Devil’s advocate here James, but did you consider that maybe Patrick&Allison’s questions just weren’t all that good?
#25 by James on April 27, 2012 - 10:49 am
Scheduled questions are open questions, not as open as diary questions, but that means you get a simple one printed in the Business Bulletin like “Can the First Minister confirm his commitment to equal marriage?” before following up – which is where you get an unscripted exchange. The questions submitted would have to be very bad indeed to fall foul at that point.
But for a neutral assessment of Patrick’s questions (actually, an SNP-supporting one) I also refer you to Indy’s very kind answer.
#26 by Indy on April 27, 2012 - 8:49 am
I think Patrick Harvie is much better at asking questions because he actually asks questions, he asks what people might actually want to know about an issue and is therefore more likely to get an answer. The usual format for the others is basically for them to take whatever is in the news and follow up by saying doesn’t this prove you’re a fat, lying jobbie and of course Alex then says no and by the way more people voted for my party than voted for yours so shut your face. It’s totally boring and no-one ever learns anything.
#27 by Jeff on April 27, 2012 - 9:35 am
The usual format for the others is basically for them to take whatever is in the news and follow up by saying doesn’t this prove you’re a fat, lying jobbie and of course Alex then says no and by the way more people voted for my party than voted for yours so shut your face.
Love it.
#28 by Doug Daniel on April 27, 2012 - 10:31 am
That’s probably the most accurate and succinct description of FMQs I’ve ever read. Completely sums up PMQs as well, of course. I’d love to know how and if other countries do it.
Scottish Questions in Westminster could be similarly summed up as people from all parties saying “doesn’t this prove that the SNP government are crap, that no one in Scotland want independence, and that the referendum needs to be held tomorrow?” with Michael Moore saying “yes, this proves the SNP are rubbish, that no one in Scotland wants independence, and that we need to have the referendum tomorrow.”
#29 by Richard on April 27, 2012 - 11:35 am
Therefore I’ll rephrase my last comment. Is it not possible that Patrick&Allison’s questions are TOO good, don’t fit the expected format (i.e. pish), and thereby render themselves unsuitable for selection.
After all, James was only complaining about the numbers.
#30 by Kirsty on April 27, 2012 - 3:05 pm
Comment. Of. The. Year!