SNP MSP John Mason claims some party colleagues 'too wedded to the party line'

An SNP MSP has claimed some of his backbench colleagues are “overly protective of the party line” within parliamentary committees.

John Mason, who is deputy convener of Holyrood’s Finance Committee, suggested committee members and backbenchers’ attitudes are a more pressing concern than the structure of committees themselves.

Having won a majority four years ago, the SNP retains a majority in 11 of 19 Scottish Parliament committees, albeit the figure was higher before John Finnie, Jean Urquhart and John Wilson quit the party.

RELATED CONTENT

Presiding officer looks to committee reform

MSPs plan committee reform probe after rejecting elected conveners

SNP 'could undermine credibility of Energy committee' says former Labour MP

Last May a major split on police reform among members on the Public Audit Committee brought concerns over the impartiality of the Holyrood committee system to the fore.

The committee produced two different reports on the savings sought by a single police force – one from SNPs MSPs and one from opposition MSPs – after Labour, the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats accused their colleagues of putting a “flattering interpretation” on the Scottish Government’s role.  

The Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee is currently undertaking an inquiry into committee reform and the steps needed to strengthen their ability to scrutinise legislation.

Mason, who has sat in the Scottish Parliament since 2011, submitted a written contribution following a call for evidence that went out to all MSPs.

The Glasgow Shettleston MSP told the committee that he did not believe “changing the system in itself is the answer”.

“Rather my feeling is that the answer is in the attitude of the Members of the Scottish Parliament and in particular the attitude of backbench members within the majority party which is currently the SNP,” he said. 

“I do think there needs to be a realisation amongst backbench members in the same party as the Government that part of their role is to scrutinise legislation and policy and hold the Government to account.

“It seems to me that some backbenchers are good at this but some seem to be overly protective of the party line.”

However, Mason did point to the Finance Committee’s recent scrutiny of Freedom of Information legislation as “an example of best practice” with government accepting their views on matters including exemption for the Royal Family and whether or not the organisations covered by FOI should be increased.

“I do not think the structure including the party balance is the key matter,” he added.

“Rather it is the attitude of both Government and opposition members that really matters most.

“The Government backbenchers need to be prepared to challenge the Government and also the opposition members need to be constructive at times and not just oppose for the sake of opposing.

“The danger is that with a majority of Government backbenchers on a committee the backbenchers will be too subservient to Government whereas the opposite danger is that if opposition members have a majority they will oppose for the sake of it and this can lead to an impasse as with the United States budgets.”

The Standards Committee will take evidence from six MSPs, including former Education Secretary Mike Russell, later this week as part of their inquiry.