Week 3'2 Participative Democracy

1
Week 3.2 Participative Democracy

• Interest Groups and Civil Society

2
SCC goal for participation

• the coming of a Scottish Parliament will usher
  in a way of politics that is radically different
  from the rituals of Westminster more
  participative, more creative, less needlessly
  confrontational

3
New Politics - SCC

• the participation of more people and groups
• a style of politics which is consensual or
  non-confrontational
• fostered by a more open and accessible
  parliament
• a mechanism to allow people to petition
  parliament
• a statutory requirement for the executive to
  consult widely before legislating.
• I.e. avoiding limited consultation with the
  usual suspects

4
Furthered by the CSG

• People find it difficult to influence
  legislation, with consultation ineffective and
  policies only becoming public following the
  publication of legislation.

5
Recommendations

• Greater use of draft Bills still open to change
• Committee role in ensuring wide consultation
• A civic forum as a focus for civil society
• A system for the receipt of public petitions, to
  ensure public initiation of policy as well as a
  response to it
• An open and accessible Scottish Parliament
• Different channels of consultation to be
  considered e.g. social partnerships, consensus
  conferences, citizen juries, opinion polling

6
Initial points on these aims

• Hopes and Dreams Scotland not alone.
• Strawman critique of a strawman critique?
• SCC picture of old Westminster things are not
  that different in the UK
• The treatment of the SCC aims as naïve

7
Initial criticism of SCC strawman

• There are always winners and losers, with hard
  choices required
• No amount of rational or consensual decision
  making will change this
• Consensus seeking stifles debate
• No demonstrated link between process and
  participation
• Some aims incompatible e.g. devolving decisions
  to civic forum undermines accountability through
  elections

8
Jordan and Stevenson

• If too many claims made for participative
  democracy at the unjustified expense of
  representation (based on popular cynicism around
  party politics), then faith in both is undermined
• Focus on usual suspects and wider consultation
  underestimates level of UK consultation
• Little discussion of direct participation - do
  the participants pursue their self-interest or
  the general interest?

9

• Why privilege excluded groups - If the small
  groups are relabelled as not popular the
  arguments sound less compelling
• New bias towards a small, conservative,
  unrepresentative but active group? Is this better
  than a mass electorate choosing representatives?
• The real problem was the democratic deficit
  solved by devolution. Ballot box closer to home
  aids representation.

10
SCC strawman

• Alternative is to see SCC document as a manifesto
• Focus on only positives - less partisanship, more
  public involvement
• Focussed rather than naïve
• Partisanship doesnt completely undermine aims
• Look for marginal change/ improvements

11
Marginal changes?

• How much new participation has been fostered by
  the Scottish Civic Forum?
• What effect has the provision of a clear
  petitions system made?
• To what extent have previously excluded groups
  entered the policy process?
• What is the effect of an open and responsive
  Scottish Executive obliged to consult widely on
  group-government relations?

12
The Scottish Civic Forum

• Widespread lack of respect of SCF in Scottish and
  NE groups
• Talking shop charge, with groups seeking more
  direct channels
• Useful for individuals and less well established
  groups, regional arms of larger Scottish/ UK
  group
• Established groups perhaps not best judge
• How about director of SCF?

13
SCF Director

• Funding 80 from Scottish Executive, running
  out.
• Level of Participation difficult to get 50
  people in a room. To achieve around 15 needs
  phone-call reminders and often transporting
  people to meetings.
• Links with Scottish Parliament sporadic, often
  undermined by partisanship. List MSPS more
  likely.
• Links with the Scottish Executive formal and
  informal. Scottish Executive commissions work
  but cultural difference of expectations.
• Measuring success difficult to research

14
Public Petitions

• Westminster petitions procedure remote/ vague
• Scottish change linking the Scottish Parliament
  to the people
• 616 1st session, over 800 now
• What does the Public Petitions Committee do with
  them? Redirect, investigate?
• PPC changed its approach after 1st year. It had
  a choice

15
CSG Inquiry

• Was the PPC simply a post-box, reflexively
  feeding petitions where appropriate to subject
  committees for consideration, or was it able to
  take a more active initial role itself in looking
  critically at petitions? The PPC view had settled
  on the latter, with the result that 57 per cent
  of petitions referred to subject committees in
  the first year of the Parliament, but only 17 per
  cent in the second

16
Who proposes them?

• International experience suggests used by groups/
  business as part of wider strategy
• 40 from groups in 1st 2 years
• But many from less well established community
  groups
• Most from individuals (although note the effect
  of serial petitioners)
• So on the whole used by those intended

17
Effect of petitions?

• Procedures Committee suggests not to expect too
  much petitions as a form of agenda setting
  (e.g. sewage issue)
• Borders rail campaign, hepatitis C petitions
  perhaps prompting other inquiries
• Petitions feed into other inquiries and wider
  agendas e.g. section 28/ 2a, stock transfer in
  Glasgow (effect uncertain)

18
Petition Problems

• High expectations?
• Finding time in subject committees
• Time lag
• Lack of time given to address PPC (3 minutes
  plus)
• Public knowledge of system

19
Interest Groups and Participation

20
SCC hopes?

• Better and more frequent access for groups
• A more open consultation process (with a clear
  link between group effort and the end result?)
• Consultation with a wider range of groups than
  the usual suspects
• Involvement from previously excluded groups

21
Initial qualifications

• The idea that group-government relations in the
  UK is a closed world does not fit with the
  evidence. The barriers to entry for most groups
  are very low.
• There is a logic to regular consultation with the
  same groups these groups have resources
  valuable to government (information, advice, the
  ability to implement policy, etc).
• We need to be careful when talking about excluded
  groups why necessarily think that e.g. the
  opinions of small and relatively disorganised
  groups are more valuable than existing
  participants

22
Evidence is a mixed picture

• Most groups are much happier with post-devolution
  arrangements. Access is better and more regular.
  
• They would say that, wouldnt they? - many
  respondents were associated with the push for
  devolution and have a vested interest in making
  the process work.
• Maybe groups compare their access with the access
  they enjoyed as a neglected Scottish arm of a UK
  organisation.
• Maybe they enjoy better access than they had, not
  the main organisation had.
• Is this solved by addressing the democratic
  deficit, not new politics?
• Recent UK evidence is similar - e.g. use of email
  has improved levels of contact
• Approximately half of the relevant Scottish
  groups were part of a larger organisation

23
Types of group in Scotland, 1998
I.e. largest proportion is UK with Scottish
branch. Type of group crucial how power and
resources devolved to Scottish arm?
24
Wider influence of groups?

• No easier to find in Scotland
• There will always be winners and losers
• Large groups complain about the small group
  influence suggests pluralism?
• Wider consultation means usual suspects find
  other ways to influence government e.g.
  pre-consultation, working group membership
• Why? Logic of certain consultations

25
Interest Group Study Brief picture

• Significant shift of group focus
• Positive image of Scottish Parliament and
  Scottish Executive
• Easier access
• Plurality a more open, accessible and healthy
  policy process.
• Substantive debate rather than lobbying
• More dialogue between e.g. economic/ social
  groups
• Networks of groups developing eg gang of 5
• Groups tend to hedge their bets (changed now?)
• Possibility of better access or influence
  (compared to UK) for certain groups timber,
  meat, fish, etc.

26
Qualifications

• MSP and Scottish Executive inexperience
• Scottish Parliament/ Scottish Executive
  relationship unclear.
• Pluralism means sharing access
• Consultation does not mean negotiation
• Consultation fatigue/ resource constraints.
• Different groups, different policy areas

27
Some Group Differences

• Business groups initially opposed to devolution -
  relationship has taken time to develop.
• Social groups and trade unions already had a good
  relationship Labour since 1997, vocal on
  devolution and built on relationships
  immediately.
• Strong social policy agenda immediately following
  devolution. This meant that some groups were
  more likely to seek and gain access. Since 2003
  there has been some shift to economic issues
  perhaps at the expense of social.

28
Accessing MSPs

• No problems of access
• Some complaint from SCDI about committee turnover
• If anything groups say they are relied on too
  much
• Perhaps similar to picture painted by Jordan and
  Richardson of UK MPs the relationship mostly
  benefits MPs needing information

29
Ministers

• Increased contact
• 3-12 formal meetings per year for key players
• Seeing a UK minister was like gaining an
  audience with the Pope
• Ministerial meetings often an unnecessary bonus?
• 2nd term difference less political weight
  behind implementation?

30
Civil service

• Some feel civil servants are flanking ministers
• Others that civil service is the best to deal
  with day-to-day
• Easy email/ telephone contact
• Many groups discuss pre-consultation

31
The Quality of Access

• 1st round
• Devolution has produced more concern with the
  substance of policy, as opposed merely to
  lobbying for resources
• The policy process is more open and consultative
  than before
• However, they don't know if consultation will
  make a real difference. Many are adopting a "wait
  and see" position

32
Summary of 2nd round or 2nd term differences

• Business groups under less pressure
• The significant role of the TUC and unions has
  been institutionalised
• Some voluntary sector groups are concerned about
  their relative lack of access in the second term.
  
• Ministers delegating decisions

33
If time left

• Example of smoking
• Huge consultation suggests public participation?
  Or certain sections?
• Public opinion against total ban? Does political
  leadership therefore undermine or legitimise
  democracy?
• Working groups produced main plans?
• Key public health groups the driver?