|
Briefing Document No 20 - Page 7 of 8
True to its Principles? - Continued.
Access and Participation
3. Our starting points here are that access to Parliament and to Parliamentarians (both formally and informally) is clearly much better than before, and that participative ways of working are not simply "politically correct" but effective in contributing the experience and expertise which make for better decision-making.
3.1. As indicated above, the Committee system is the key access point for most groups. A wide variety of bodies and individuals have given evidence: these include Ministers (8.5%), civil servants (17%), "quangos" (21%), local government (9%), private companies (4%), trade unions & professional bodies (15%), educational institutions (3%), voluntary sector (18%), individuals (3%) and other bodies (2%) (figures are approximate percentages of the total). Some of what might seem a high proportion of civil servants and quangos is part of the process of scrutiny rather than giving evidence, but there are concerns about the width of invitation beyond the "usual suspects" and those with the resources to press for inclusion. While those who have given evidence on behalf of churches have generally felt the experience positive in terms of the Clerks' briefing in advance and the Committees' questioning and listening, there have been concerns about the treatment of "witnesses", who have occasionally felt under a level of cross-examination that goes beyond robust questioning about material presented towards a courtroom model of establishing a case. There is also resentment when a Committee hears evidence in public, but considers that evidence afterwards in private. Such experiences are a substantial discouragement to participation.
3.2. While the CSG report did envisage some Committee meetings in private, it was concerned that this should not become the norm. The discussion of future work programmes (which are more than "housekeeping"), and of draft reports, are important parts of the process from which the public, either in person at meetings or through the Official Report, should not be routinely excluded. Power cannot be shared where people are excluded, especially if this is on the basis that they will fail to understand what is happening (by confusing drafts with decisions). We therefore welcome the recent discussion of these issues in the Procedures Committee and their inclusion in this inquiry; we particularly appreciate the Convener's expression of the doubts that are "raised about the system when discussions take place in private or without proper scrutiny" and share his concern over "whether committees have not retreated too far from the public agenda". We also welcome the move to publication of notes of Parliamentary Bureau decisions and would hope to see this developed into fuller minutes, and applied by the Scottish Parliament Corporate Body and the Conveners' Liaison Group. It would be a significant outcome of this consultation if the Committee were to revisit, in the context of applying the CSG principles, the guidance on meetings in private.
3.3. A further disappointment has been that the CSG recommendation for non-MSP members of Committees was not, apparently, reflected in the Scotland Act, and therefore has not been practised. The appointment of advisers was seen as the alternative means of achieving this, but this process has not been transparent and advisers have been chosen from a fairly restricted range of predominantly academic expertise. While recognising the possibility that the choice of an adviser could be seen as having the effect of excluding others, we would like to see wider use of this option by Committees.
|
