With the media focussing on a personalised Salmond/Sturgeon spat, you'd be forgiven for missing the astonishing allegations of arrogance and abuse of power, legal processes, and Parliament itself (along with denying information to the committee) at the heart of the Scottish government establishment, some of which will of course be challenged in future evidence.
Neverthless it might chime with what we already know about this government's woeful record on Freedom of Information.
These issues of course hung over the previous sessions I've watched but this session brought them front and centre.
One of the things that struck me in particular this time was the embarrassing reading (and lack of any inquisitorial follow up) of prepared (or prepared for them) questions from some SNP committee members, while missing miserably in their apparent intention to be incisive enough to take Salmond out of his comfort zone - to the extent that he at least twice suggested a questioner should have read their papers. In fact, I am surprised that incisive even crept into this post as a description that could describe most of this committee session from what I can see.
Given what we know about Tories and law and power (prorogation, miners' strike, blacklisting etc) it is galling to see their committee members occasionally shining slightly above in questions actually relevant to Salmond's evidence and the committee remit.
What is clear to me from this and previous evidence is that the harrassment policy and its implementation failed the complainants (and if some allegations are true, the accused too) and it is hard to see just now how this committee is getting anywhere near to the root of that.
It is also hard to see how 'mediation' in many existing policies, and much vaunted by Mr Salmond, might always be appropriate unless it is entered into entirely and freely voluntarily. Informal resolutions have their place because most people don't want to go through stressful formal procedures. They just want the problem fixed.
Yet those tests of voluntarily and freely are notoriously hard to meet genuinely when it comes to issues of power and/or coercive sexual harrasment. It is an issue that trade unions as well as HR departments need to get their heads around sharpish.
One thing that puzzled me was an intervention from Chair Linda Fabiani regarding evidence that Salmond said he couldn't give in answer to a question because of an 'injunction'. She said the committee policy was that 'the evidence comes in and we decide our publication policy'. But what if the evidence doesn't come in?
I have given evidence to Parliamentary Committees on several occasions in the past. I was well able to recognise the 'committee sitters' but was also encouraged (and of course at times unsettled) by the diligence, knowledge, background preparation, and forensic questionning of many MSPs from all parties.
On the basis of that experience I have been only too ready to defend the Holyrood committee system because I saw it as more accessible to citizens than the Westminster system and because my experience was of real attempts to understand the issues, hear voices from the front line, and explore solutions.
However, it was also clear to me that the system depended on the quality of MSP committee members and their willingness to engage intellectually while, temporarily or at least tactically, putting the more obvious factional interests on the back burner.
What I missed, and it has been exposed in these committee sessions, is the apparent toothlessness of the system - especially when sitting as an inquiry - when it comes to allegations of obstructing it.
The 'teeth' require both courage and willingness from the committee to act and an ability to do so. Both seem to be lacking here. A system that was meant to scrutinise, inform and hold to account can do none of that if it can't overcome obstruction.
Of the many things that may come out of this, that issue above all needs to be addressed.
See Salmond's evidence at BBC iPlayer - Select Committees - Live Alex Salmond Committee
No comments:
Post a Comment