parliaments in recent decades. This is partly in recognition of the fact that, while the plenary is at its best when articulating the most prominent political issues of the day, committees are “best suited to develop and shape legislation, exercise oversight of executive action, facilitate overall legislative productivity, increase its policy expertise, and enhance partisan cooperation.”65 As the principal mechanism for detailed analysis, they appear to be making greater use of public consultation than is usual in plenary. For example, in the United States, they are “the most widespread venue for public participation, used at all levels for a variety of purposes.”66 In France, the use of public hearings has grown exponentially over the last decade, whereas committee hearings were previously rarely open to the public. Indeed, at the French National Assembly, the number of persons (ministers, civil society representatives or experts) who participated in such open hearings at the request of committees was multiplied by 10 between the 20022003 and 2009-2010 sessions and nearly doubled between the 2008-2009 and 2009-2010 sessions. The Portuguese Parliament collects online contributions during the legislative process, which helps MPs to see which articles in a draft law attract more questions or are more controversial. Committees’ consultations tend to target both expert opinion and the public in general, but both appear to be increasing. For example, the Finnish Parliament notes, “Perhaps the most important changes relate to the hearing of experts”, which is usually the start of a committee’s deliberations: in certain instances, a sole witness may be called, but, in major legislative projects, it is common for a committee to hear from dozens of experts. The frequency of such consultation has increased from an annual rate of approximately 2,000 experts during the 1980s to 5,000 today. The Eduskunta also reports that several committees convene open information-gathering meetings in the form of seminars and on-site visits. In this, Finland’s much-lauded Committee for the Future has led the way and is now emulated in various national and regional parliaments, including those of Chile and Scotland. Appointed in 1993 in the midst of a severe socio-economic crisis as a means of addressing foreseeable long-term and “central future-related” 65 Khmelko, Wise and Brown 2010:76. 66 Williams and Fung 2005:31.
issues,67 it was at the time “the only such parliamentary committee in the world” and “began to attract attention from other countries”, inspiring the creation of a similar bodies elsewhere. Despite a comparatively small budget, the committee created a 60-member consultative body of academics and scientists to assist its work called the ‘Forum of the Experienced and the Wise’.68 An MP active in the Committee, Kyosti Karjula, claims, “Even by international standards, the Committee for the Future has adopted an extraordinary role in representative democracy.”69 In other countries, there have been notable initiatives led by specific committees to actively draw in the public more widely. For instance, in Ghana, the first chair of the Public Accounts Committee, concerned about the low response rate to calls for evidence, changed the committee strategy by opening up its proceedings and actively seeking public input. In 2007, the committee held its first public hearing, designed, as he puts it, [A]t increasing transparency, strengthening the accountability process, and boosting the confidence and support of the public in Parliament. It was also an opportunity for the public to feed the PAC with information on how some projects or expenditures of government were managed. Through advertisements in newspapers, television and discussion platforms the general public and civil society were invited to the hearing. Through both electronic and written media we had asked input from anyone that had information on the matters on the agenda, with the possibility for people to testify in public if they wanted to.70 The hearing brought public attention to key issues of corruption and government spending and the subsequent chair of the committee continued the practice, stating that the “flagship activity is the Public Hearing, which is now televised and is one of the major TV programmes in our country.”71 Members of parliament are nearly unanimous in their approval of the work of the opposition-led committee, with 94 percent of MPs believing it “to be doing a good job”.72 Moreover, it has 67 68 69 70 71 72
Eduskunta 2011. Hansard Society 2010a. Groombridge 2006. Sallas-Mensah 2010. Parliamentary Centre 2009. Brierley 2010.
Global Parliamentary Report: The changing nature of parliamentary representation
33