The main purpose of this morning's business is to wrap up some of the evidence that we had hoped to work into our consultative steering group principles inquiry earlier. We have finished our programmed evidence taking, so today's session represents sweeping up of evidence from people whose evidence we want to include. We will be fairly relaxed about everybody joining in.
Good morning. I am the SCVO's policy officer and am responsible for most of the briefings with which we try not to bombard the Parliament. I must convey apologies from Jill Flye, our parliamentary information officer. It is unfortunate that she is unwell at the moment, because she is our expert on parliamentary procedures. However, I will do my best to answer questions on her behalf.
Thank you. Members will range across those issues in the questions or points that they have. They may also refer to issues that were raised in your submission which, as you said, was prepared some time ago, when we were trawling for written evidence.
Obviously, it is important to be realistic and to acknowledge that political parties need to have a place to discuss their business. We do not argue that meetings of the Parliamentary Bureau should be entirely in public and that the public should be invited to them, or that there should be a full Official Report of bureau meetings. However, in terms of accessibility, it is important that civic society knows exactly how decisions are made, and that it knows well in advance what the timetables are likely to be. The bureau does not meet in public and does not minute its decisions fully, so it is difficult first, for that level of accountability to be fulfilled and, secondly, for organisations that want to contribute to debates to know well enough in advance what the timetable is likely to be, so that they can include that in their work plans.
You might be surprised at how short the forward programme is, and how little any of us know about what is likely to arise.
You feel that your people have difficulty getting at ministers—they have a secret code—and that they cannot even find out who ministers' private secretaries are. What would you like us to get the Executive to do to open that out?
It would be useful for the Parliament to take the clear view that the Executive should also implement the CSG principles, because when the CSG report came out, most people assumed—without really thinking it through—that it would also cover the Executive. It was a surprise to many organisations that I work with to find out that this inquiry, for example, was not examining the Executive, and that it was examining only the Parliament. Although the Parliament is moving forward in implementing the CSG principles, the Executive does not seem to have changed its culture much. It is a question for the committee how far it feels it can influence that culture, but it would help us if the Parliament made a statement that it is important for the Executive to consider the principles in its work.
One of the criticisms that you make of the Parliament is on a matter that many of us share concern about, and that is the rapidity of stages 2 and 3 of bills. What should we do to improve that situation? Is it a question of allowing more time, or could we have a better structure, whereby organisations that have an interest in a bill can feed in their views and we can bounce ideas off them?
Much of that comes down to better timetabling. That is important for much of the Parliament's work. During stage 1, or before stage 1 when inquiries take place, I have known committees to consider examination of an issue for six months; however, they have not got round to asking for views on it. In such cases, they suddenly need to receive views within a fortnight. I am sure that the same is true throughout the legislative process.
Let us say that the Procedures Committee was the lead committee on a bill, and there was an issue that affected a specific organisation. If Murray Tosh lodged amendments, and I wanted to know whether you thought that they addressed that issue, how long would you need to comment on such amendments?
We need to be clear that many of the small local groups that I work with will not be involved with amendments, because it is resource intensive to read amendments and the bill, and to work out what is going on and where a contribution would matter. The larger and better-resourced organisations would be involved, but if they wanted to be involved properly, they would need three or four weeks. Few voluntary organisations in Scotland have full-time staff to deal with parliamentary matters.
I take you back to your comments on the Parliamentary Bureau. It is claimed that horse-trading takes place in private at bureau meetings and that if that were not done, no compromises would be reached, and that if meetings were held in public, rigid party lines might develop. Is there a fear of that happening?
That reason is often given. It is also given to explain why committees do not meet in public all the time. I throw a question back at MSPs: would not it be nice if you did not always have to follow party lines in public? The CSG principles are based on the assumption that MSPs will be able to advance the public interest, and not always follow party lines. I hope that that would be the case, regardless whether it was noticed by the public.
We are all in political parties, and we all have strong views on particular issues. It might be better to discuss some issues and to reach a compromise—do the horse-trading; give a little and get a little—in private. We should be aware of the public perception and we should remember that there are other people behind us, but if the horse-trading was done up front, it would put members in political danger.
There is a compromise position, which we support. There need not be an Official Report of meetings, but what was discussed and what was agreed should be fully minuted. That would mean that everyone was clear about what had happened, but you would not have to go through the process of horse-trading, as you called it, in public. The groups that I work with in communities would be pleased to see more negotiation and discussion between MSPs leading to positive conclusions, rather than what they see in Executive debates, which are party-line based discussions.
Would you be more comfortable if a clearer agenda was produced, so that even if you could not influence it, you would at least understand what was coming up? In other words, would an agenda and an outcome—in the form of a reasonable minute—fit the bill and overcome the fact that it might be necessary to horse-trade in the bureau?
That would be useful. Charities must be open and accountable, too, but we are not expected to write down every word that is spoken in a management committee meeting—which is probably just as well. However, we ensure that people can find out what is going on. Having full agendas and reasonably full minutes of bureau meetings made available would be helpful.
I will perhaps ask another question later.
You note in your submission that there have been a substantial number of debates on the voluntary sector in Parliament, which have gone a long way towards raising issues among MSPs and others. What are the main tangible results that flow from that degree of attention to the voluntary sector? Have your expectations been met, or should some of the perennial problems that voluntary sector organisations face—for example, concerning funding streams and the administrative process—have been addressed, rather than some of the other problems? Would that have delivered more for the sector? I know that that is a slightly leading question.
Luckily, we agree. We have been very pleased with the level of interest in the voluntary sector that the Parliament has shown. It has been great to have almost annual debates on the issues, in which members have raised all the key concerns, both national and based on their constituency experiences. However, three years into the Parliament there have been no major changes. Perhaps it would be expecting too much to expect a lot of changes to have taken place in that time. Many review groups have been set up and there has been a lot of considering of issues, but there has not been much movement forward. For example, we have concerns about funding, which Susan Deacon mentioned. A funding review has been on-going for a long time but has not come to much; ditto for charity law reform and the social economy review. There is obviously a slight mismatch between the level of parliamentary interest in the voluntary sector and the political will or ability to take tangible actions.
You mentioned your desire for the Executive to adopt the principles on which the Parliament was based. The use of the term "Executive" has been mentioned by previous witnesses. In using that term, do you draw any distinction between civil servants and ministers, based on the experience of your organisation or the organisations that you represent?
We probably have to make a distinction. The SCVO has had very positive relations with ministers, although the difficulty is that it is quite hard to reach them. That might not be the experience of many local voluntary organisations, however, because organisations need to be well known and perhaps have links with particular ministers before they can short-circuit the official channels and reach them. Many smaller organisations therefore probably do not draw a distinction between ministers and civil servants, because they cannot reach ministers at all. Nonetheless, the SCVO draws that distinction. Ministers are generally happy to talk to us, but when we go through the official channels it is hard for us to reach them.
How are small voluntary sector organisations' experiences and perceptions of the Parliament shaped? As you say, they will not have contact with ministers or the Parliament directly, as would be the case for a national body such as the SCVO or a larger national voluntary sector organisation. How much are small organisations' perceptions shaped through contact with local MSPs, through consultation processes and through the SCVO?
There is an interesting mixture of positiveness and cynicism when we talk to local groups. If a group has been in contact with its local MSP, visited the Parliament or been involved in consultation, particularly through the parliamentary committees, it is usually very positive. Groups that have not been involved and which have only read what has appeared in the press are much more negative. Negativity tends to increase the further from Edinburgh those groups are. We try to hold sessions in Inverness and further north, but it is hard to get people to come and find out how to interact with the Parliament, let alone to give us positive stories about it.
You mentioned confusion among the public and a lack of clarity about the respective roles and responsibilities of constituency and list MSPs, which has been raised by previous witnesses. You suggest that formal guidance should be published on those roles and responsibilities. First, can you illustrate what the confusion is about? Secondly, should any further guidance and clarification focus on the existing definition of MSPs' roles and responsibilities, or ought there to be a substantive reconsideration of those roles and responsibilities?
Originally, when we considered the electoral system and the election of members to the Parliament, we thought that it was a positive thing for local organisations to have a range of MSPs to talk to about an issue. If, for example, a constituency MSP were not very interested in an issue, an organisation would have others to approach who might be. We spent a lot of time going round local organisations and telling them that. However, the feedback that we have received from those organisations is that that situation often backfires on them, because constituency MSPs dislike list MSPs' becoming involved in what constituency MSPs consider to be constituency business. It is not clear to us how we should advise local groups to deal with that situation, or whether they must simply contact their constituency MSPs even if they know that those MSPs are more interested in different issues. There might be ways in which MSPs can agree among themselves to divide up issues or to accept that organisations might want to contact one political party rather than another because they know that its policy is more sympathetic to their cause. We would like to know how to advise organisations about that and we hope that the committee will be able to provide the key.
We, too, wish that we could find a way to work that out. The majority of members of the committee are list members, so we might well be able to agree on a code.
I take it that, although you have criticisms to make, you think that the voluntary sector has far more access to Parliament and the Executive than it had to Government before devolution.
Yes—much more.
Your submission says that you are concerned about the fact that committees tend to accept academic views as neutral while they view the voluntary sector as biased. Can you explain that a bit more?
I understand why many people think, because voluntary sector organisations are single-issue organisations, that they are more likely to be biased. However, the same is true of academics and anybody else who has experience of a specific issue. Often, the SCVO might provide the only centre of expertise on certain generic voluntary sector issues; however, we would not be considered when committees were looking for advisers because we are thought to have vested interests. Academics, on the other hand, are considered to be neutral despite the fact that they have their own interests in the issues.
So, is your concern more about the appointment of advisers than the evidence that is given to committees?
Yes. There is still a tendency to regard somebody who has a professional title as more valid than an expert voluntary group, especially in the appointment of advisers. Committee advisers are nearly always academics although, occasionally, it might be more acceptable or sensible to appoint a voluntary sector organisation or some other organisation.
On openness and accountability, you expressed concern about some of the parliamentary committees' meeting in private. In previous evidence, we have heard that the voluntary sector is increasingly becoming part of a task force that is appointed by the Executive. The funding streams for voluntary organisations also often come from the Executive, and the organisations make recommendations and horse-trade behind the scenes with the Executive before a bill reaches the Parliament. If an organisation that was part of a behind-the-scenes task force that was horse-trading with other voluntary organisations and the Executive gave evidence to the committee that was considering a bill whose development that organisation was involved in, would that cause any concerns about how the voluntary sector is perceived?
I am not entirely sure how many times that has happened, but I hope that such an organisation would be clear about any interest that it might have in the bill. As members know, the voluntary sector is diverse. Large national organisations with resources are involved in task forces. Many other organisations deal with similar issues and could give slightly different perspectives on them.
If committees did that, would the SCVO and other organisations attack the Parliament for not taking evidence from the major players?
We certainly would not.
Do you understand that if the private sector acted similarly—if a company were part of a task force, involved in forming legislation and called to give evidence—the danger would be that much of the secret horse-trading would take place not in committees, but behind closed doors? Do you encourage more openness in the form of minutes and accounts of pre-legislative consultation and task forces?
Yes.
My final question is on the Parliamentary Bureau. I have a vested interest that I should declare, as I am a member of the bureau. Are you aware that the bureau has a weighted voting system and that the Executive has more votes than anyone else does?
Yes.
To promote consensual compromise and the best interests of the Parliament, would one solution be equal votes for each member of the bureau? Making negotiations open and public might protect the best interests of the Parliament, as opposed to party-political advantage.
That relates to coalition politics and the decision to form a coalition after the previous election. A colleague who will give evidence today said in his submission that it was slightly disappointing that the coalition was formed. Some commentators in the voluntary sector agree that the coalition created more party-political cleavages in the working of the system. It is obvious that the bureau works in that way, too. The issue applies more widely than just to the bureau. I do not want to comment more than that.
You have made some welcome constructive suggestions. Often, we just hear views. The suggestion of annual reports on accessibility is particularly good. The idea of a partnership with the Scottish Civic Forum on the CSG principles is quite good, but the annual audit idea strikes me as a bit too much navel-gazing.
Together, we can. At times, committees want to meet witnesses in private. There may be good reasons for doing that—particularly when a committee wants to talk to individuals who are affected by a policy and who might not want to talk in a room such as this committee room.
That involves the balance between being private and being secret.
Yes.
I will take that a little further. Much of the evidence that we have received suggests that the people with whom we engage might be losing their enthusiasm for participating and engaging with us. It has been suggested that consultation overload could be taxing many organisations and that organisations are, or might become, demoralised because they do not receive adequate feedback on how their submissions were received—that relates to committees discussing evidence in private when they conclude their reports. Do you detect weariness among the organisations that you deal with? If there is any such fatigue, is it a work load issue or does it relate to feedback? Are there any other contributory factors?
It is always dangerous to talk about consultation fatigue, because we are still very grateful to be involved in policy making, but you are right—the smaller organisations with which we work are concerned about the amount of time that staff spend on consultations from the Parliament and the Executive. We are heading towards the summer, and I know that about 30 consultation documents will be on my desk by the end of May, as all the civil servants go on holiday. That is how the system works.
I have seen Executive consultation reports that summarise the responses that have been received and give responses in turn. Do people feel that that is better practice or is that regarded as a bit of window dressing? Are there any lessons for the Parliament and its committees?
That system works well. We recently received the Executive's summary of the responses to last summer's consultation on the reform of charity law. I think that the Executive employed people from the Robert Gordon University to do that work. That was useful for us, but unfortunately the summary came out about eight months after the consultation had closed.
Among the organisations that you deal with, do you detect frustration—or anything stronger—with the lack of feedback, or are people happy to keep producing blue-sky reports?
There is frustration, not only with the lack of feedback but with the lack of real implementation. During this first session of the Parliament, good progress has been made on some issues, but many generic voluntary sector issues, which must be fixed before we can consider other policy areas, are stuck. People have been consulted five or 10 times on the same issue over the past 15 years but we have not moved towards change. Beyond simply getting feedback on what everybody has said, we need feedback on how consultation will lead towards change. That is what is lacking, and it does cause frustration.
Thank you very much for your contribution. You are very welcome to stay for the rest of the meeting, or part of it, but you do not have to. There is no pressure one way or the other. If you want to stay and contribute further during anybody else's contribution, please feel free to do so.
I am afraid that I have to leave to get ready for a meeting of the Finance Committee later today.
That is okay—it is only politicians and journalists who have unlimited time.
I am the Scottish political correspondent for The Herald and I am prefacing the session simply because the initial invitation came to me as the convener, at the time, of the SPJA. I thank members for the invitation to contribute.
I have made a written submission and I do not want to add much to it as I know that the committee has things to do. However, one event—which would have come under the heading of accountability—may have overtaken the submission since I made it. That event was the Shirley McKie business that took place in Parliament the other day. I am at a loss to understand why news programmes such as "Panorama" and "Newsnight" were able to deal with the issue of why my tax dollars are being spent to continue the persecution of a woman who has been cleared by the courts and who has had an apology from the Minister for Justice but who cannot get a settlement from the state, but it was a closed book to us, in the cockpit of Scottish politics and public life. Members may want to address how accountable the Executive is through Parliament on the business of Scottish life.
If members do not mind, I will go through my submission in a bit more detail, to bring out specific points.
Thank you. I start by drawing Eric MacLeod into the discussion to deal with the code of conduct. That is something of which we were not aware. Could you clarify the role of the code of conduct and give us an idea of who the accredited journalists are? Is there evidence that we should be concerned about inappropriate people obtaining access, particularly to embargoed documentation? I do not know exactly what that would be, other than SPCB or Parliamentary Bureau papers. I cannot imagine that "Widget Monthly" would want to have a handle on that. A real concern has been raised and we have to be satisfied that there is no abuse.
I will take each of those points in turn. As Kenny Farquharson explained, the code of conduct was drafted by the advisory panel to the CSG. At the time, there were concerns that we could be subject to the type of abuses that Kenny outlined. There was concern at Strasbourg and Westminster that lobbyists were using media accreditation as a way of getting inside the Parliaments under false pretences.
Is there a list that is publicly available? Could the SPJA see a list and say, for example "Wait a minute. That's ‘Widget Monthly'"?
I would be happy to make that list available.
That should be a function of openness and we should all be able to find out that information.
I could not advise you whether there is an issue to do with data protection. However, I would have no qualms about making available a list for journalists to scrutinise.
Would the only data protection issue not be that people would have to agree to their information being on such a list? Surely any journalist who applies for accreditation is going to agree to being identified as a journalist with accreditation. We might consider carefully those who did not want it to be known that they were accredited journalists.
I support that suggestion whole-heartedly, provided that we can put in place the correct procedures to ensure that all journalists are willing to be identified. If they were not willing, I would be suspicious. As long as Parliament complies with the law—as it must—I support wholly the idea of publishing the details of who has accreditation, or at least making that available on request.
Could you do a bit of digging on that for us? Could you find out the issues and give us further feedback?
Yes. I would be delighted to do so, especially if that would help to put Kenny Farquharson's mind at rest. I think that it is a good idea.
Why did the code of conduct not progress? Was it because of a plot or because of normal incompetence?
Or, indeed, any other possible explanation.
I know that the code of conduct applies. When journalists sign up for accreditation, they have to sign up to abiding by the code of conduct.
We are not necessarily saying that that should be done, but if day passes are given out in the manner in which you have explained, we should know about that and everybody should understand how it is done. There should be an understanding that we were dealing with established newspapers. We should all know what the rules are and who the individuals are.
I am still trying to pick myself up from the depressing thought that Robbie Dinwoodie offered us—that journalists are our "best hope" for the future.
We are here to talk about whether the CSG principles are being upheld, but not for one minute do I deny that, if the whole thing becomes a shambles and if you are all at one another's throats, that makes great copy for us. It is true that bad news is good news from the media point of view. If things all become party politicised or if there is a great bun fight, we get great headlines. The question is whether you can put in place procedures to open things out and prevent that. Do not get me wrong: I am here to get stories that readers of The Herald will want to read. Conflict makes good copy.
At a wine and drinkies thing not long after Parliament opened, I tried to talk about this subject to Tom McCabe, who was then Minister for Parliament. The news had filtered through to us that Mr McCabe had issued an edict saying, "Don't talk to these guys. They're on the other side of the fence." The very divisive approach that Susan Deacon talks about set in very early on.
I can suggest one way in which the Parliament and MSPs can use the press as a resource in the parliamentary process. The specialist correspondents for the Scottish newspapers spend every working hour of their days reflecting on issues in health, education, agriculture or whatever and are among the best-informed, most thoughtful people on those subjects in Scotland. I see no reason why the Health and Community Care Committee or the Education, Culture and Sport Committee, for example, should not be tapping into those people's expertise. Some of those correspondents—I am thinking in particular of some of those who work for The Times Educational Supplement—have been doing their jobs for 15 or 20 years. They have an intellect and a store of knowledge and memory of the issues that are unsurpassed, perhaps even by the professionals working in the relevant field. There is no reason why members should not be asking those people for their thoughts on the issues that are before you.
I raised this point at a previous evidence-taking session with some of your colleagues from other media outlets. I share the view about specialist correspondents. However, when as Minister for Health and Community Care, I asked them why they did not attend parliamentary debates on the relevant subjects more often and suggested that it would be helpful for them to go to more committee meetings, I was told by more than one specialist health correspondent that that was seen not as their territory but as the territory of the political press corps. Whether that is merely perception or is borne out by policy or guidance, I do not know—and I am obviously not going to mention specific titles in public.
No—I agree with you.
I disagree.
I agree with that point and I also agree with what Susan Deacon said about ministers or MSPs confronting the press and talking to them—Kenny Farquharson asked for that and I remember such an approach from Susan Deacon's time as Minister for Health and Community Care. For example, when the smear scare arose, Susan Deacon just came right out and said, "Right boys—this is the situation, this is what we've got to deal with and this is what we're doing." The sting was taken out of the story almost immediately because of the frankness and openness.
Robbie Dinwoodie had a different point of view.
When several committees are held throughout the day or some are held simultaneously, we would welcome our specialist correspondents covering them, so the point about specialists being told that the Parliament is not their place does not apply.
I have been seriously shafted by the media only three or four times since the Parliament started, which is quite a good record, because I stick my neck out a bit. I see life as a war between us and the Executive. What advice can you give us on how to win that war?
As one of Donald Gorrie's shafters—I apologise whole-heartedly for that again, as it was accidental and I am still sick about it—I advise you to stand up for yourselves. I hope that you can read that from my submission. The example that I cited in my submission involves poindings and warrant sales. You might take the view that the Parliament said that we should get rid of poindings and warrant sales and that the working group came up with a somewhat diluted proposal, which is now back before Parliament, and that we must go with its advice. That constraint was not felt about fox hunting. When Parliament said that fox hunting should be abolished, the Rural Development Committee said, "That's rubbish and will never work," but Parliament nonetheless said, "Actually, it damn well will."
I suggest that what is lacking is a voice for the Parliament. Who speaks for the Parliament? The Presiding Officer and occasionally the SPCB speaks for it, but apart from them, who presents a parliamentary view? The obvious source for that is the conveners liaison group. As the SCVO representative said, that is the most underdeveloped part of the committee structure and it could provide a coherent and broad-based voice for the Parliament. The convener of that group could become a significant figure.
One other difficult issue concerns committees going into private session to consider how to write their reports. Could committees write reports openly without people on our side grandstanding or people on your side running slightly misleading stories?
I fail to understand why a committee reaches a point at which all arguments must be in private, when all previous arguments were in public and all arguments afterwards will be in public. If members have honestly held differences about how a committee should pursue its conclusions, why not discuss them in public?
If members are concerned about grandstanding, who are the bloody-minded refuseniks who will make such difficulty? Are your colleagues so difficult and so irrational that their opinions cannot be aired honestly and openly in public?
If a compromise is reached, is not it better that we see how it was reached? Is not it a matter of pride that a committee has reached a compromise, rather than gone into private and produced the outcome like a rabbit out of a hat? I do not see the problem.
That was helpful.
I ask the journalists to comment on the Parliamentary Bureau and reflect on the question that I posed to the witness from the SCVO.
The bureau does not just perform a managerial function for the Parliament. The decisions that are taken in the bureau are key to people's faith in what the Parliament is doing. For example, the bureau decides whether to allocate time to some legislative business. It decides whether members' bills should receive assistance, time or the backing of draftsmen. On controversial members' bills, such key decisions should be made in public. The bureau should be accountable for them.
There is a case for being more public about bureau and SPCB discussions, not least to dispel some disinformation. A good example of that is Kenny Farquharson's point about the allocation of resources for members' bills. The bureau has not agreed to any criteria or proposals on members' bills, although the corporate body has. Just as there is confusion between the Parliament and the Executive, there is confusion about who does what in the Parliament. The corporate body has a powerful role in the Parliament and the bureau has a different function. Perhaps we should put the record straight on that.
I think that that is naive. That a member has been put on the bureau by their party to pursue a party view does not matter. Why not say, "We will elect members of the bureau in a parliamentary vote—individuals will therefore represent better the interests of the Parliament"? The reality is that members pursue a party agenda in the bureau. I do not see anything wrong with that.
The possibility that the conveners liaison group might be a powerful voice in the Parliament and that we are missing such a voice was mentioned. What will happen when proposals to legitimise and bring into the standing orders a role for the conveners liaison group come to the bureau? The Labour party has a majority of votes in the bureau and we might wait many months for it to come back on that matter, as it may have concerns as to how that would operate. Again, an avenue for the Parliament may be restricted through a weighted block vote system that you said is only realistic. How can the Parliament have a voice of its own when, as you said, the issue relates to the basics of power and the fact that the Executive parties have the majority of power, even in the Parliament? How can the bureau be separate and distinct if all the votes lie with the Executive?
I would see the convener of the conveners liaison group being in a position that is almost commensurate with that of the Presiding Officer. They would do a different job, but would perhaps be elected in the same way as the Presiding Officer, and not just by the conveners.
I want to move to a different subject—the geography of the new Parliament building and access to it. Are you confident that you will have access in the new Parliament building? The Parliament buildings are under the control of the Parliament rather than the Executive. Will the Parliament have more opportunity to say that if there are briefings, they will be on the record and that we expect ministers and conveners to make full use of parliamentary resources to ensure that there is access and participation by the media? Are you confident that the new building will allow you the access that you want?
Historically, the issue that triggered the creation of the grouping was the original users' brief that was drawn up before the architectural competition. We were appalled by the original plan to create a hermetically sealed complex in respect of the part of the building that MSPs and their staff could get into as opposed to the part to which the public and the press could obtain access. We thought that that would not work—we are meant to work in the Parliament and to speak to MSPs. It would have been possible for MSPs to arrive at the underground car park, go up to their offices, go from their offices to the chamber, from the chamber back to their cars and out again without ever coming across any of us. That alarming prospect prompted the creation of the grouping and I think that we have won most of the battles. I am slightly worried about rumours about the inadequacy of the press's viewing position inside the main chamber. We can argue about such matters, but I think that we have won most of the battles—Eric MacLeod might want to confirm that. [Laughter.]
Just hoist the white flag, Eric. Before he says anything, Kenny Farquharson's paper made a point that he did not touch on in his presentation—his concern that the MSP block might be off limits to journalists. Is that still a concern?
I have not seen the latest plans for the MSP block. At first, the suggestion was that the offices for MSPs' assistants would lead to the offices for MSPs. Those outer offices are open-plan and I understand that the parties may want to use them in different ways. That area may therefore have a party-political function and there may be resistance to us wandering in and knocking on doors. However, we have to have the right to knock on the door of any MSP, even if the party does not want us to speak to that MSP.
My understanding is that an MSP's office will be fronted by an area where his or her immediate staff will sit. Pooled staff will sit elsewhere on the same floor. I had not envisaged things working any differently from the way they do now, with people wandering quite freely through our open-plan offices.
From the way that things have worked on the present campus, I have no reason to say that anything should change. Things have worked well. There has been no bad behaviour from journalists. [Laughter.]
We could report some.
Well, no bad behaviour from my point of view—just the odd difference of opinion. In Holyrood, journalists should have the same freedom to roam as they do now. We will be able to close down certain parts of the Holyrood building but, unless there is any real cause to do that, it will remain open.
Andrew Nicoll spoke about the fact that the Parliament did not debate the Shirley McKie case last week. Can we just clarify the point that the Parliament—as the Presiding Officer set out—is subject to legal action, whereas "Panorama" on the BBC is not subject to that legal action.
How so? If I publish things—
The point is that, at the moment, legal action is being formed against the Scottish Executive—
But not against the Scottish Parliament.
But against the Scottish Executive in respect of the Shirley McKie case, which prevented—
Absolutely, but not against the Scottish Parliament.
The comparison is important. The Scottish Executive was asked to respond on the Shirley McKie case, but "Panorama" is not subject to the same legal action as the Scottish Executive. I have not formed a view on that, but can you clarify things?
"Panorama" is subject to contempt of court legislation, just as I would be if I published something that prejudiced the case. The Executive, as you say, is subject to legal action, but the Parliament is not. If the Executive chose not to respond to the debate, I do not see how that could prejudice the case. That is not a ruling that I make; it is a ruling—
I appreciate that, but can we clarify the point that "Panorama" can take that chance of being in contempt of court? It can go down that route if it decides so to do. That is the comparison that I am trying to bring out.
It is absolutely the programme's decision. However, it will be subject to penalties. I cannot believe that the producer or director of "Panorama" has access to fantastic legal information that makes him feel that he can make a television programme—which is subject to the same legal penalties as anything else that is published—whereas the best legal brains in the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Executive feel unable to conduct a debate and skate on that thin ice.
The Parliament has more legal protection than a television programme. It is a bona fide public body with qualified privilege. It is just not true to say that the debate could not have happened. I do not understand that view and I have talked to many lawyers and none of them understand it either.
We are in danger of getting caught up in a dispute over a specific ruling.
I respect that proposal, and would like to move on to a different point.
The point is that we do end up reporting the compromise that is reached, but we are not able to report how it was reached. I cannot see that doing the latter would be more harmful.
Would that attract the same amount of copy? Would you give the front page of The Herald to the Scottish Parliament's Health and Community Care Committee reaching a compromise on a given issue? If an issue—perhaps concerning the Minister for Health and Community Care—divided the members of that committee, that would get on the front page. You are right to say that there are opportunities to make things more open to the public and the media, but they do not always get reported.
I conceded in my earlier remarks that conflict makes a better or sexier story. Nevertheless, if we are reporting the outcome of compromise, it seems wrong that we cannot report the mechanism by which that compromise was reached.
I agree with Paul Martin about the angle that we would be coming from. Would it necessarily be a bad thing for the reputation of the Health and Community Care Committee and the Parliament if the Parliament was seen to be flexing its muscles against Executive policy sometimes, or to be reaching a consensus on shearing the rough edges off Executive proposals and honing them down?
I go along with that. Many committees do a lot of hard work, particularly the Public Petitions Committee, for example. A great deal is discussed at that committee that is of benefit to the public. Concerns might be raised by its members that journalists do not report its business as effectively as they could. We need to look at both sides of that argument.
I share the concern that has been voiced by my colleagues. We are examining the principles of the Parliament itself. The principles of sharing power, openness and accountability are designed to encourage a different—perhaps more consensual, but that is debatable—way of working compared to Westminster.
I have never worked at Westminster, apart from the odd day here and there. However, after speaking to colleagues I suggest that journalists at Westminster have a better and more open relationship with politicians than we do here. That is partly for the wrong reasons, as the lobbying system at Westminster is a protection for politicians and journalists that allows a certain kind of free flow of information. I would not advocate the adoption of such a lobbying system here. However, we must recognise that, because of the spats in the first few years of the Parliament, the press and politicians here do not have a good relationship. Those spats happened because some of the press corps in Scotland were inexperienced in political journalism and because the MSPs were also inexperienced. The politicians were wary of making mistakes or saying the wrong thing, and they were whipped mercilessly by the parties.
My submission relates to the key points concerning the sharing of power, accountability, accessibility, openness and responsiveness. It is sometimes hard to find a positive thing to say. My experience of reporting politics, pre-devolution and post-devolution, has been that the accessibility here is in a different league altogether. Like Kenny Farquharson, I did not spend long at Westminster. I would go down for big events, but most of my interviews were conducted at the end of a wire. That made it easy for your Westminster colleagues not to be around. If they did not take the phone call, we could not get near them. However, there is no escape for you chaps—which is great for us.
I take Kenny Farquharson's point about the degree of inexperience on both sides, with press and politicians feeling their way. It might be expected that, as we get to know each other a bit better, some of the barriers might come down. However, there are signs that the Executive is tightening its grip. My impression is that committees have become more tightly whipped. I know that that is not meant to be formal, but that is my impression and I do not know whether anyone who is involved would deny that.
It is interesting that you are suspicious that we are moving in the wrong direction. Perhaps it is only my perception, but I agree with Kenny Farquharson that the relationship between journalists and MPs at Westminster is different. It is more open, perhaps because there is not a great deal of openness about Westminster itself. MPs and journalists have to establish a bond of trust and confidence, which I am sure is evolving here.
It is when they ask what the time of day is.
We are committed to openness and to sharing the power and we are trying to head in that direction with our procedures. Do you, as journalists, find that the defensiveness towards journalists that has crept into MSPs' behaviour is working in the opposite direction? Are we maintaining our commitment to openness and accessibility for journalists or are we becoming more defensive, less open, less transparent and less willing to share the power?
The longer that MSPs have been around, the more confident they have become. I am on the opposite side of the debate from Kenny Farquharson: the general assumption should be that, when someone speaks to a journalist, they are speaking on the record. That is not to say that an MSP cannot come to any one of us and say that they want to have a wee private chat about something because they want to explain the background to it but they do not want it to be reported as coming from them. If I broke my word in those circumstances, I would never expect that MSP to come back to me.
In the latest edition of The Spectator, there are articles by my colleague Trevor Kavanagh and by Simon Heffer, which bemoan the death of the lobby because only through the lobby are ministers held accountable by probing, searching questioning from experts who know what they are talking about. Talk to Peter McMahon—the bloodied corpse of Peter McMahon—and ask him about probing, searching questioning from people who know what they are talking about. The journalists at Westminster cannot get rid of Stephen Byers, but Henry McLeish is gone. That speaks for itself.
We will make that last remark the subtitle of our report.
I am by definition a biased academic, as the SCVO witness said. I notice that Frances Horsburgh is sitting in the public gallery. She is a member of the expert panel on media issues. Would it be possible to hear her views on the extent to which the CSG report has been implemented and whether she shares Kenny Farquharson's views on that? Would that be appropriate?
Given where we are in the timetable for today, it is not appropriate. However, if, having heard the discussion, Frances Horsburgh felt that she wanted to submit a wee note similar to those that Kenny Farquharson and Andrew Nicoll submitted, I would be delighted for her to do that. The committee would be deeply appreciative of such a note.
Aye—well I think it is.
Go on then.
I have a train to catch.
An MSP has a packed day.
That is true; it is terrible.
I do not know how long I have been trying to explain to people the difference between the Parliament and the Executive. Nobody seems to get it. Journalists who work with me every day in the head office in Glasgow have trouble distinguishing between the Executive and the Parliament and, God knows, it is hard to get that difference over to the punters. As you say, people are very clear in their minds about what the job of the Government is at Westminster. I cannot understand why there has been a psychological barrier in relation to Holyrood. If members have any ideas about how I can explain such matters to people, please let me know, because I am at a loss.
Intensive training courses for the people who write your headlines would probably be useful.
Part of the trouble could be the terminology—the terms that we use are lousy. At the time of the original act, I remember asking Donald Dewar whether the terms that were going to be used would be descriptive or prescriptive. He insisted that phrases such as "the Executive" and "the First Minister" were simply descriptive and that they were technical terms. We have ended up being lumbered with them.
You guys, helped by half the political parties, blew him out of the water. Susan Deacon will ask a final question.
I would like to note something, as it is important that, in my condition, I keep my blood pressure down.
We would all be delighted if the Executive would come forward to discuss those issues in precisely those terms.
Thank you, convener. Just for the record, I am the deputy general secretary of the STUC and Tracy White is the assistant secretary of the STUC.
I guessed that something like that might be the case. Obsessions with hierarchy are a very male thing.
We welcome the opportunity to speak to the committee. We were invited to give evidence at a meeting in February, but were unable to attend. We appreciate the fact that the committee changed its arrangements to accommodate us. Flexibility in enabling us to give evidence is one of the positive aspects of our engagement with committees of the Parliament.
Will you expand on the concern raised in your written submission that there is a
There are a couple of issues in that. The STUC has generally taken the view that it represents trade union members not just as workers, but as citizens. For example, the STUC has an interest in relation to those who provide public services, but our members are also consumers of public services as citizens of Scotland. They participate in the broad range of activity in Scottish life and we have something to contribute in that respect, which is often unappreciated. We are usually pigeonholed as the representatives of workers, rather than as an organisation that has something to say about the views of our members as citizens.
That is particularly important where individual affiliated organisations have specialist knowledge and can add value to the process. I do not want to sound churlish, but I would ask the committee to reflect on the fact that although the STUC is the single umbrella organisation for trade unions operating in Scotland, our counterparts in the business community have upwards of six organisations and it is often the case that all six of those organisations have a separate opportunity to participate in an inquiry or to be involved in the process of scrutinising legislation. The STUC may be being disadvantaged by being the sole representative body. We represent about 630,000 trade union members in Scotland and there is an issue about the weight that is given to our evidence, particularly given that our opportunities to give oral evidence might be restricted.
Would the STUC be a better organisation for encompassing the view of members, and of members as consumers, than the affiliates would be?
I am not sure that we could claim that we would be better than individual affiliates.
I meant better at combining the two roles.
We would endeavour to present a broader perspective and a consensus view from our affiliates. As Tracy White said, some of our affiliates have members with specialist knowledge of particular areas of policy. We would encourage committees to speak to those people and make use of that specialist knowledge. We STUC bureaucrats do not have that level of insight; we can only try to reflect our affiliates' positions and views. We can bring different things to the Parliament than can the affiliates. I would not say that one was better than the other.
Is there any sense in which the STUC has a better capacity to create and express policy than some of the affiliates?
I am not sure that I can comment on whether we are better than our affiliates. Our policy is developed across a broad range of our affiliates' interests, which means that the views that we express are comprehensive. However, in relation to some detailed areas of policy, our affiliates, because of the nature of their engagement with their members, would be in a better position to provide detailed information.
You might be aware that we spent some time on the subject of how the Parliament could best engage with the unions when we spoke to people from various trade unions. They echoed the view that current practice was inconsistent and should be co-ordinated better. Could the STUC take on more of a global role in advising the Parliament? That might be done as a follow-up to our inquiry. I suspect that the Scottish Parliament would welcome guidance from the STUC on the most effective ways of engaging trade unions with the parliamentary processes at various levels.
We would be happy to take on that role. To be fair, we currently do work that is similar to that which you suggest, but there is an inconsistent approach to that across the committees. We are in regular contact with a number of committee clerks and conveners and have advance knowledge of the work that they plan to do. When it is appropriate to do so, we are always keen to advise them on the best way of getting a view from the trade union movement. We might tell them how to consult somebody or we might tell them how to structure an inquiry to ensure that they consider the aspects that we think should be considered. That is when decisions would be made about whether we present evidence from a collective STUC position or augment that with the specialist interest of certain unions in particular circumstances. However, that happens only when the relationship with the clerk and the convener has been developed over some time.
I hesitate to introduce the next subject, as I have not consulted my colleague, and she might shoot me down in flames for mentioning it. Members of the committee may be aware of the memorandum of understanding that the STUC and the Executive signed recently. The memorandum addresses a number of issues that arise from the relationship between the STUC and the Executive. It does that using a partnership approach.
You did not consult me, so I cannot help you.
I did not consult my colleague. Members will have to excuse me. I apologise; it will come back to me.
Have any of your member unions commented on the timetable for bills and whether bills are given adequate time at stage 2 and before stage 3, when amendments are being lodged? That is when suggestions for amendments can be heard along with comments on amendments that have been lodged.
The STUC's engagement in the legislative process has taken place only at stage 1. From dialogue that we have had with our affiliated unions, I know that they find the stage 2 process to be somewhat truncated. They have mentioned that a longer process would allow better consideration of amendments as they are lodged. I am not sure whether Tracy has anything to add.
In the main, our experience of legislation has been at the inquiry stage of public policy making. Even at that stage, our experience is that there can be huge inconsistencies in the approaches that committees take. The European Committee, for example, has given us notice of an inquiry that it is to undertake over the next few months. The deadline for submitting evidence is after the summer recess. Like Donald Gorrie, I do not want to put a particular committee in the dock, but we have become involved in the Transport and the Environment Committee's inquiry into the future of the rail industry in Scotland. In that case, the deadline for written submissions was two or three weeks.
It is not always clear to us why some committees and not others invite us to submit evidence. When we are invited to participate at short notice, we suspect that the request was made as an afterthought. We suspect that someone has said, "We had better talk to the trade unions about that."
If a committee were considering something that would have a big impact on local government employees, should it contact you, Unison and other local government unions, or is that an either/or situation?
Our relationship with local government unions means that they are comfortable with contact with the Parliament coming through the STUC. We have developed a relationship with the individuals involved in each of the unions. When we have given evidence—apart from the first time that we did so, when the committee invited all the unions to participate individually—we have been able to provide the committee with oral evidence from a variety of unions that come at issues from different perspectives. To do that and to ensure that the appropriate people are present, we have to have flexibility with regard to the number of people who can come along, the time available for participation and the notice that we are given.
Given the number of members that your affiliates represent, you are a key body within Scottish society. I acknowledge the STUC's role in establishing the Parliament. There is an argument that the debate about democracy should not die with devolution and that we should have a continuous debate, not necessarily about the constitutional form of democracy—devolution or independence—but about the type of democracy that we have.
There were an awful lot of questions and I am not sure that I caught them all, but I am sure that you will assist me as we go through them.
One point was about what we do to communicate what the Parliament is and what it is about. Over the course of any given year, we have a series of conferences for our various committees, which form part of the STUC's policy-making process. We have a youth committee, a women's committee, a black workers committee and a Highlands and Islands conference. We regularly invite cross-party parliamentarians to come along and engage in a dialogue with those conferences through, for example, question-and-answer panels. That gives MSPs the opportunity to talk directly to our members, rather than having to do so through the various journals that are produced by our colleagues who gave evidence earlier. We take that dialogue seriously, and our members have valued it over the past two or three years. I hope that the MSPs who have had the opportunity to be involved have also found it to be worth while.
In addition, many MSPs attend our annual congress as visitors, and take that opportunity to engage with our members. That has not happened on a cross-party basis, but we would like to encourage it on a cross-party basis. We want to engage with MSPs from all political parties on issues of concern. We hope that more MSPs will come.
How much does democracy cost the STUC?
Lots. Since devolution, we have not calculated the cost in pounds, shillings and pence, but a vast proportion of our resources is devoted to engaging with the Executive and the Parliament. We put a lot into the submissions that we make, both written and oral. We try as best we can to ensure that what we have to say is of quality. We recognise that if it is not, the credibility of our arguments will be affected and they will not be given due consideration. A lot of our resources are devoted to engaging with the Parliament.
Do you feel frustration because of a lack of response from the Parliament to the representations that you make to committee inquiries? We have picked up suggestions that voluntary organisations feel that they do not get feedback. Do you feel that you get adequate feedback when you give a submission to a committee?
My experience is that we do not get adequate feedback. I do not know whether Tracy White's experience is different. My experience is also that, on occasion, we have been given limited time to provide oral evidence, which can be frustrating if you have spent a lot of time briefing yourself as best you can. It can be particularly frustrating when you are trying to take account of the views of a vast number of unions, and you come to a committee and are dismissed after 10 minutes. We appreciate that committee agendas can sometimes slip, but it would be useful to know the time scales for submitting evidence to ensure that we are adequately prepared for the debate.
The member asked about the cost of democracy. That is something that organisations such as ours probably underestimated when we were campaigning for the Parliament to be established. We thought about the number of times that we would write or speak to committees, but we had not foreseen the process that we would have to undertake thereafter to ensure that our views are at the forefront of MSPs' minds. We had not properly taken that into account.
Fiona Hyslop has already acknowledged the role of the STUC in establishing the Parliament. It is interesting that one of your dilemmas is how to satisfy the demands of the various committees that want to hear from you. I hope that that is quite a flattering position to be in.
In the past, we have gone to committee clerks or conveners when we are aware that they are about to undertake an inquiry and we have said, "It's really good that you're doing this inquiry, but your remit's not quite right. If you really want to tackle the issue, you might want to think about putting this in your remit and we'll help you investigate that aspect." To cite an example, the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee decided some time ago to undertake an inquiry into the new economy in Scotland. The original remit focused on what dotcom companies were doing and what was happening at the high end of electronics. We approached the convener and the clerk and said that, although from our point of view it was important that there was a policy on development in those areas, the new economy must also be about how we apply new processes and technologies to traditional areas of activity. If we do not get that right, we risk developing new strands of economic activity while allowing existing ones to wither on the vine. The committee understood the point that we were making and added another investigative strand to its activity. We welcomed that.
The committee will be aware that a number of members of the Parliament are members of trade unions. I am sure that they take advantage of their union membership to ensure that they are aware of some of the issues on those unions' agenda, and that from time to time such issues emerge in the work plans of committees.
We have covered all the issues that we wanted to raise. Thank you for giving evidence to us this morning. I hope that you feel that you had a long enough crack at putting across your points, and that the way in which we handle contacts with you and your affiliates is adequate. As you watch the Parliament grow and develop, you should feel free to raise procedural issues directly with the clerk and convener of the Procedures Committee.
Previous
Interests