Scottish Parliament News
|
Cathy Peattie MSP
|
Year OneThe Scottish Parliament has now completed its first year. Since I was elected fifteen months ago, this is clear proof that a year can be a long time in politics… Things were slow to get moving. To some extent this was inevitable, with the parliament being so new and all. We did not want the procedures and facilities of the new parliament to be a carbon copy of those from another place. The Scottish Parliament needed to consider carefully how a parliament should operate in the twenty-first century, to ensure that the decision making process was as open and as accessible as possible. It was frustrating that the tools of our trade took so long to put in place, but there were many issues to resolve, and skipping basic administrative questions would have created problems further down the line. Unfortunately, the media portrayed this as collective navel gazing instead of addressing real issues, and described the recess that followed as a holiday - far from it! Constituents’ needed their problems dealt with, regardless of parliament’s recess. Furthermore, now that the ground rules were laid down, our “holiday” was my first proper opportunity to get to grips with the staffing, equipping and organising of a constituency office. For the first few months, I lodged with the TGWU in Bo’ness Road, but this was a temporary (and slightly cramped) arrangement. In January, Michael Connarty MP and I moved to our present office in Kerse Road, and I was finally able to complete setting up my office. The first year has had its fair share of controversy. The issue of prayers in parliament generated a lot of mail, and I continue to receive many letters and postcards on issues such as GM foods and hunting with dogs. Letters that I have received opposing Mike Watson’s Bill are mostly from people who have written to all MSPs, or all members of the Rural Affairs committee. Almost without exception, letters from Falkirk East constituents support a ban on hunting with dogs. The new Holyrood building has hit the headlines several times. Many MSPs (myself included) had reservations about the plans in general and the cost in particular. The project seems expensive, especially when the total cost is put alongside other expenditure. It is however viewable in a more favourable light when compared to other similar projects, with the initial cost spread over the long lifetime of such a building. The latest news is that building work is now proceeding according to its revised time and cost schedules (and is due to open late next year). The biggest storms were undoubtedly those surrounding Section 28. The conflicting parties eventually found a compromise position, but not without significant collateral damage to the Scottish Executive, the Scottish Parliament, and others. The Scottish Schools Boards Association was an early victim, presented as supporters of retention when no proper decision had been made, nor consultation undertaken. Cardinal Winning’s intemperate assessment of the Scottish Parliament as “an utter failure” revealed more about himself than the object of his condemnation. Brain Souter may feel that his money was well spent, but if the wealthy can buy influence, this is surely a failure of democracy. Lest anyone think that I am concentrating overly on negative aspects, I should make it clear that the Scottish Parliament has been achieved a great deal in its first year. Often though, this has happened in ways that are underreported by the media and not fully appreciated by the public. While the showpiece debates in the Chamber attract a crowded gallery and feature prominently in press and TV coverage, the cameras are mostly absent from committees. Committees are host to the nitty-gritty of the political process, assessing evidence, examining the options and rehearsing the arguments. Political parties have different positions resulting from their internal policy processes, but cross party co-operation is strong, ensuring that committees act with a high degree of impartiality and independence. By contrast, when an issue moves to the full parliament, the battle lines are generally drawn, the troops entrenched, and the outcome predicTABLE bgcolor="#FFFFCC". The most notable exception so far was the warrant sales debate. Yet, even then, the signs were there to be read. Labour backbenchers were clearly very reluctant to ditch Tommy Sheridan’s Bill, no matter what faults it had. After all, it could be amended – and what signals would it send if it were dropped? The question remains as to whether the Executive somehow misread or chose to ignore the signs, or whether they simply decided that on this issue they would flex their muscles and attempt to railroad the vote. As it turned out, the Scottish Parliament chose to assert itself over the Executive. I believe that it is of fundamental importance to the health of our democracy that the Scottish Parliament not only has this power, but also is prepared to use it. The moral however, is clear for those seeking to participate in the policy making process. Get in early, watch what is happening in committees and consultations, and make your views known. You don’t need to be a professional lobbyist, and in many ways, it is better if you are not. The Scottish Parliament is remarkably open to approaches from all walks of life. Not only is it physically closer to the Scottish people than Westminster, it is more accessible in other ways. Cross Party Groups not only meet in public, but also frequently include in their membership individuals and representatives of organisations pertinent to the work of the group (for more information on CPGs, check the Parliament web site). Petitions to the Scottish Parliament do not disappear into a sack behind the Speaker’s chair, never again to see the light of day. The Scottish Parliament has a Petitions Committee, which ensures that petitions are given due consideration by parliamentary committees or other organisations as appropriate. I was recently involved in a good example of how the process can work. Argyll & Bute Council had proposed the closure of six rural schools. One of the school boards involved submitted a petition, which the petitions committee referred to the Education Culture and Sport Committee, who in turn chose of their members (me) to prepare a report. After speaking to a wide range of people involved in the consultation process, I submitted my report, which concluded that the process was flawed, and that there should be better guidelines for considering such matters. The Education Culture and Sport Committee endorsed my report, and the Council chose not to go ahead with the closures – at least, not for the time being. Using the parliamentary process, a handful of parents had achieved their major objective, a reprieve for their school. They had also set in motion a chain of events that will lead to improvements in how such matters are considered in the future. The Argyll & Bute Report was compiled during the busiest period of the parliamentary year. Both of my committees were considering major Bills – the National Parks Bill for Rural Affairs, and the Standards in Schools Bill for Education, Culture and Sport. And of course, amidst the report writing and the plethora of additional meetings, I had to deal with the regular flow of constituency work, dealing with local organisations and individual problems. Constituency casework as increased steadily through the year, as constituents have become more aware of who their MSP is, how to contact me, and most importantly, what issues they should refer to me. These include major areas of government policy, such as health and education (there’s a list of who does what on the right…), and my constituency post bag and surgeries are inevitably dominated by related problems. Of course, it’s not all hard work. I do receive invitations to events that are fun to attend. I hadn’t been to the Bo’ness & Kinneil Railway since Cara and Emma were at primary school, but being an MSP has changed that … Cathy |
|
no java? use the sitemap |