SITTINGS OF SELECT COMMITTEE SHOULD NOT BE OPEN TO THE PUBLIC

February 6, 2014, By KNews, Filed Under Features/Columnists, Peeping Tom, Source

Sittings of the full House of the National Assembly are open to members of the public. Sittings of Special Select committees are not.

The reasons why Bills are sent to a Special Select Committee are multifold. Firstly, they are sent there because there was an understanding between the political parties of the previous parliament that important and controversial matters would first be discussed within select committees before being brought back to the full House for approval.

Secondly, Bills are sent to select committees so that they may be refined for eventual resubmission to the House. As part of this process of refinement, it may become necessary for the Committee to invite testimony from experts on the subject matter of the Bill before the Select Committee.

Experts may be invited to give their opinions and the members of the committee will then have to consider whether and how to incorporate these opinions into the revised Bill that will be sent to the House.

Thirdly, sending a matter to a Select Committee allows for political compromise.  Within the Select Committee, the parties may discuss in a less contentious atmosphere the various clauses of a Bill. These discussions are usually less acerbic than in the full House and the nature of the discussion allows for all sides to be considered because the environment in the Committee is more conducive to this than in the full House.

There may even be some form of horse trading behind the scenes whereby one party pledges support for one clause in exchange for the inclusion of another clause or an amendment. This is more easily accommodated within Select Committees sittings and is one of the advantages of referring a Bill to a Select Committee.

Members of the public do not attend sittings of Select Committee either as observers or as spectators. It is strictly a confidential sitting even though verbatim records are kept of the proceedings.

The public does not therefore see what takes place within Select Committees and their opinions of relations between the various sides of the House are based  mainly on what they see when the  full House Assembly sits.

The image that is formed is not usually a nice one. They see a combative atmosphere. They leave the public gallery during sittings of the full House feeling that the sides are at great odds with each other and that personal relations are strained.

In the full House also, there is a high risk of political grandstanding and playing to the gallery. There is hardly any compromise when the full House meets, except during the odd periods when there is unanimous support for Bills and legislation.

This however, is not the full picture because the reality within Select Committees is totally different from what exists when the full House meets.

A great deal of progress is usually made in Select Committees. The banter heard within the full House is almost absent and the personal exchanges are far more civil and respectful. Indeed the environment within Select Committees is far more amicable than what exists in the House. And therefore more progress can be achieved.

If sittings of Select Committees are open to the public that increases the risk of political grandstanding and playing to the gallery. For that reason and the fact that public hearings can reduce the pace of compromise amongst the sides, select committees should not be made public.

There is no need for the private sector to be invited to sittings of Select Committees. Their presence there of course may help in determining who is telling the truth when it comes to the causes of impasses. But their presence will also mean that much of the haggling that takes place behind the scenes will be stifled.

Without compromise, the Bill when presented to the National Assembly will not enjoy passage because it will not reflect the wishes of those who hold the majority.

If APNU gave assurances to the Private Sector Commission that it would not object to the PSC sitting in at sittings of Select Committees, then it is for APNU to explain why it gave such an assurance and why now it is reportedly seemingly reneging on this agreement.

APNU would however, be on solid ground if its position is that on the basis of principle there should be no observers at sittings of Select Committee. The presence of the public at Select Committee sittings changes the character of those sittings and should be discouraged because it is counterproductive.