Another week, another report. No Week in Parliament next week I’m afraid, not only because of the bank holiday but also because I’m off on holiday. We’ll also be absent the week after, as we’ll be heading North to meet with our lovely associates. I’ll try and make sure you get an extra-bonus article somewhere else instead. But, that’s then, this is now. So what’s been happening?

Westminster

The biggest consultation debate in Parliament this week was around the Government’s proposed Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Bill, which proposes the replacement of police investigations and prosecutions for alleged crimes committed during the Troubles with a ‘truth and reconciliation’-style body focussed not on criminal culpability, but on information recovery.

As with all such things, the idea has proved very controversial, particularly in Northern Ireland, where the legacy of the Troubles is still a living one, certainly far more so than in Westminster. Of particular concern is the proposal to give immunity from prosecution to those who co-operate with the new body in providing information. In the Commons this week, the Government were challenged on an alleged lack of engagement with stakeholders on the new legislation, with Northern Irish MPs claiming that neither political parties, nor victims and survivors’ groups had been properly engaged with.

The Government disputes their claims, but it’s certainly the case that there has been a very limited degree of what we would define as ‘open, public’ consultation (only one directly related as we can see). Whilst we have no doubt there has been some behind the scenes, one of the key elements of proper consultation is transparency and openness, and we would suggest that however accurate or inaccurate claims on the subject might be, the Government has not helped themselves by doing it behind closed doors.

Issues such as this are always difficult ones to handle- in a previous life I made something of an examination of other ‘truth and reconciliation’ processes such as the one proposed by the Government, and as a general rule they are characterised by participation and transparency, primarily because this is a key way to secure trust in the institution by often still very divided communities. Putting these things behind a veil, even if it is a slightly translucent one, is not the way to go about it. Transparency is the key to achieving the core objective.

Scotland

Some interesting comments in the Scottish Parliament on the use of consultation to fill data gaps. Much like the UK Government, the Scottish Government have been consulting on the safety of women and girls, though in their case specifically directed toward public transport. The minister highlighted several challenges being faced in the course of the consultation, firstly the data gaps (which the consultation will help to fill, but can also be problematic in stakeholder identification), and also the question of how best to undertake the consultation on what will be for many with lived experience, a sensitive topic. It will be very interesting to see what approaches they end up taking- we’ll have a look when it’s out in the open to assess it.

Wales

A ruckus in Senedd this week over the classification of self-catering accommodation for tax purposes. I know you all get excited when I talk about tax. This was over a pre-legislative consultation which a member alleged had returned less than 1% support for the Welsh Government’s plans. Whilst the numbers don’t seem to match, of the two consultations on the subject that have been published, with my detective hat on I believe it is the technical consultation that is being referred to. I can’t find any evidence for the 1% figure from the member, but it’s clear that the changes are somewhat controversial. Flicking through the response to the consultation, I’m pleased to see that where comments that are technically outside the scope of the technical consultation (i.e. those about the policy more generally) they are still acknowledged. To use the dreadful ‘compliment sandwich’ approach, we might like to have seen an explanation of what if anything was done with these comments, or an explanation that they were out of scope. To finish off the sandwich, the response is very well written. There. I wonder why that’s often considered one of the worst management techniques ever devised?