Academics demand inquiry after 'ambush' by Holyrood committee

THE Scottish Parliament's committee system has been called into question amid a growing row over experts' claims they were "ambushed" by MSPs at a Holyrood hearing.

• Labour MSP Wendy Alexander demanded to know "the source of the analysis" used by the two academics

Two academics grilled about their views on fiscal autonomy by Holyrood's Scotland Bill committee have demanded an inquiry led by Presiding Officer Alex Fergusson into what they said was an "impolite and discourteous" cross-examination from MSPs.

The academics say that other experts could be deterred from giving evidence to Holyrood committees after they were invited to speak about the Scotland Bill but were instead "ambushed" by MSPs and questioned over a report into the economic benefits of full fiscal autonomy.

Their concerns have prompted senior MSPs to call for a review of the system amid claims of "politicisation" of key committees and of witnesses at hearing being "intimidated" and facing "hostile" questioning.

The Scotsman has obtained a copy of the letter to the Holyrood Presiding Officer from professors Andrew Hughes Hallett and Drew Scott claiming that the two men were "interrogated" by Scotland Bill Committee members over a claim that financial independence would lead to an increase of up to 1.3 per cent in Scotland's GDP.

Both witnesses said they had only agreed to give evidence about the increased powers for Holyrood set out in the Scotland Bill, but were instead grilled about the GDP claim made in a 2009 report - widely seen as a key argument for move towards Scottish independence.

Prof Scott told The Scotsman that the paper on fiscal independence was handed to committee members before the meeting, so that MSPs would be able to cross-examine them over the report - cited by First Minister Alex Salmond as showing how independence would help "grow the Scottish economy".

The professor said he and his colleague were "ambushed" by committee convener Wendy Alexander and Conservative committee member David McLetchie.

Prof Scott and his colleague have in their letter to the Presiding Officer demanded an "explanation" for their treatment and an apology from the parliament for the "impolite and discourteous manner" over how they were questioned during the hearing.

And the academic warned the Presiding Officer that MSPs would now "find it increasingly difficult" to get expert witnesses to give evidence before Holyrood committees, which he said would "damage the quality" of the parliament.

Alan Trench, a constitutional expert associated with the University of Edinburgh, has abandoned plans to give evidence at the Scotland Bill committee in protest at the treatment of professors Scott and Hughes Hallett.

Prof Scott said: "We feel extremely upset and angry that the trust we placed in the scrutiny process in which we were invited to assist was, in our view, so demonstrably abused by some members of that committee.

"In essence our question to the Presiding Officer is to inquire if he considers this to be an acceptable manner in which invited witnesses should be treated."

Green MSP Patrick Harvie, the convenor of the transport committee, claimed that Holyrood's committee system had become "polarised and partisan" rather than being a place to share "knowledge and expertise" as originally intended.

Mr Harvie said: "Parliament's committees were designed to be places where the public, civic Scotland and the professionals alike could come to share their knowledge and expertise with MSPs.

"Although they still do good work, too often they have become polarised and partisan… where those giving evidence are not given the respect and space they deserve."

Senior SNP MSP John Wilson said that parts of the committee system were "open to abuse" and said that the Presiding Officer and party leaders should agree a deal after this year's elections to ensure that it "benefits" the public more.

He said: "After the 2011 Scottish Parliament election, the Presiding Officer and the parties should sit down and look at how the system has been operating and how it can be used to benefit the public, parliament and witnesses."

A spokeswoman for the Scottish Parliament said: "We can confirm that the Presiding Officer received a letter and he will consider his reply at the earliest opportunity next week."