PUBLIC bodies risk alienating their communities by constantly using "gobbledygook" phrases that normal people do not understand, a MSP has said.
Kevin Stewart said that witnesses from the public sector giving evidence to Holyrood's Local Government and Regeneration Committee had used terms including 'third sector interface' and 'partnership-framework' when talking about community engagement.
Mr Stewart, who leads the committee, said the phrases can "act as a barrier for people getting involved" in decisions affecting them.
In a report, the committee has said that new legislation designed to give a stronger voice to communities would need to be improved if it is to meet its goals.
Mr Stewart added: For the Bill to truly empower, public authorities must avoid 'gobbledygook' phrases which cannot be easily understood."
The Community Empowerment (Scotland) Bill aims to provide local communities with the power to participate in local decision making through participation requests. It also sets out powers for communities to take ownership or management of lands from public authorities into community control.
Mr Stewart said: "During our consideration of the Bill we met with folks in communities across the country who said time and again that they wanted to be more involved in the decisions being made about them.
"There can no doubt this Bill is generally a welcome boost towards putting power in the hands of communities. However, for a Bill which is designed to empower, we were struck by the requirement that only groups with a written constitution could submit a participation request. This seems out of step with the whole ethos of the Bill."
The committee expressed concern that local communities are not sufficiently involved in the decisions being by Community Planning Partnerships, which are designed to bring together the police, NHS, councils and other public bodies to foster a joined-up approach.
CPPs were too focussed on a 'top-down' approach, the committee said. The report recommends that the Bill should require CPPs to actively seek input directly from the community.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article