It's common for certain ideas to become lodged so firmly that they stay in our minds long after the facts have moved on.
One such idea is that our Scottish Parliament, still relatively young as an institution, does politics in a newer and more inclusive way than Westminster.
My first encounter with Holyrood was as a committee witness, three years before I was elected and I did feel that the place was inclusive and business-like, a far cry from the arcane ritual of Westminster. Its online presence and mechanisms like the Petitions Committee and the Civic Forum were also innovative.
Now, sadly, time has moved on but Holyrood hasn't. Ideas which were fresh back then have grown stale. Westminster, meanwhile, has watched and learned from the newer democratic forums within these islands. While there is still a lot wrong with its culture, some of its ways of working have clearly overtaken us.
Holyrood's committee system in particular is not providing the quality or depth of scrutiny that's needed. This has become clearer under single-party majority government, but it was already a problem before that. Most committees have heavy workloads and cannot undertake the careful examination that legislation needs both before and after it's passed. Some have absurdly wide remits, and can barely scratch the surface.
Beyond this, there is a culture of absolute whipping which our committees were not intended to develop. The large majority of votes are in the bag before ministers even open their mouths. Committee reports tend to split down party lines. Some members seem unable to grasp the difference between parliament and government, and don't understand that, even if they support the Government, their job on committees is to challenge and probe, holding power accountable.
Little wonder, given that the distinction has been deliberately blurred. The job of Parliamentary Liaison Officer is analogous to Westminster's system of parliamentary private secretaries, backbenchers who act as a link between ministers and their parliamentary party. Appointment is by the First Minister, and implies a heavy expectation of loyalty. Unlike the model at Westminster, most sit on the committees scrutinising the minister they work for; some are even convenors or deputy convenors. They make speeches in the chamber and ask questions about the remit of the minister they themselves report to. This isn't parliamentary scrutiny; it's a government marking its own work.
Predictably, this culture of loyalty has become entrenched. While Westminster, for all its faults, is a feisty and rebellious parliament, at Holyrood backbench votes against the whips are simply unheard of.
In this context, and recognising that Holyrood's responsibilities are about to be broadened into welfare, taxation, energy and other areas, the Presiding Officer has broached the subject of reform. I'm concerned that the main idea being touted will make the problem worse, not better.
A cull of committees and of the overall number of committee places would leave us with far fewer committees, with far wider remits. These mega-committees might meet more flexibly, but leaving only a handful of members in charge of a Bill or an inquiry, narrowing the range of perspectives being brought to bear. If whips find it easy to control a committee of 11, how much easier a sub-group of three or four?
In the Presiding Officer's long speech on this topic, there was little designed to invigorate the culture of Holyrood. Even in the proposal for elected committee convenors, no bad idea in principle, there was no suggestion as to how control by the whips can be avoided in a small parliament where backbench competition for these posts will be limited.
The debate on reform is important. The Presiding Officer is due credit for opening it. Parliamentary scrutiny at Holyrood is weak, and improvement is urgent. But it cannot be allowed to be shaped only by politicians and officials; if Holyrood is to return to the early vision of a parliament that shares power with the people, inviting people in for art exhibitions in rooms designed for democratic debate simply won't cut it.
Patrick Harvie is co-convenor of the Scottish Green Party.
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