Official Report 639KB pdf
Good morning. I welcome everyone to the 11th meeting in 2022 of the Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee.
Our first agenda item is an evidence session with the Scottish Government on its response to “Report of the Institutionalising Participatory and Deliberative Democracy Working Group”. Members will recall that the working group’s report sets out a range of recommendations on
“how the Scottish Government’s ambition for transformative change can be delivered to make Scotland's democracy more participative and inclusive”.
We last considered the issue at our meeting on 20 April, when we took evidence from the working group itself, which was very interesting.
I am delighted to welcome to the committee George Adam, the Minister for Parliamentary Business. He is accompanied from the Scottish Government by Doreen Grove, who is the head of open government, and Gerald Byrne, who is team leader in constitutional policy. Good morning to you.
I understand that the minister would like to say a few words by way of opening, before we pursue our questioning and see where we get to.
With your indulgence, convener, I will say a few words to start with. Thank you for the invitation to give evidence to the committee. I welcome the opportunity to talk about the IPDD working group’s report, the Scottish Government’s response to it, and our ambitions for the future of participatory and deliberative democracy in Scotland.
I thank the members of the IPDD working group for all their hard work. We value their input, which will help us to build on the range of good work that we have done so far on participatory and deliberative democracy—that’s easy for me to say, convener.
In many ways, Scotland is, among the nations of the United Kingdom, leading in strengthening our democracy. We recognise that innovation in participatory and deliberative democracy offers a range of benefits. For example, people feel listened to, their trust in Government improves, we are better equipped to take complex and difficult decisions, policies are better informed and more successful, and Scotland’s democracy is strengthened.
Scotland has so far held two citizens assemblies, both of which were established to deal with complex issues, on the basis that the policy outcomes would be improved. We know from the evaluations of each assembly that members, including the children who were involved in the climate assembly, enjoyed their experience, learned a lot, and want to take part in more such activities.
The combination of benefits is why we have committed to running more regular citizens assemblies, including a citizens assembly for under 16s. We have also committed to offering people more opportunities at a smaller scale in order that they can be meaningfully involved in decisions that matter to them. Those are big commitments, and we recognise that they represent new parts of our democracy. We know that we will need infrastructure and new processes to deliver on those commitments and to learn lessons from the previous assemblies. That is why the IPDD working group was convened in summer 2021.
We are now considering the working group’s recommendations and will publish our response in due course. As always, I am happy to take questions.
It is worth noting that the whole process began with the previous Presiding Officer’s parliamentary commission, which I sat on and which looked at the whole question of public participation and deliberative democracy. I know that a lot of work has been done here in Parliament and by the Government in the time since.
We have a series of questions. Just last week, we had at a focus group at a deliberative democracy event in order that we could understand the issue. One of the issues that everyone will be wrestling with is the expectation that is created in the minds of people who participate that something will follow, which will be a challenge in relation to the reputation and sustainability of the concept, over time. We will touch on that later. I will start off with some technical questions, before colleagues come in.
We met the group and had a very productive and worthwhile evidence session. How did the Government decide on the composition of the group? I know that Scottish Government officials were involved; were they active and equal members of the group or were they there in a supporting and advisory role? What was the structure and how was it put together?
I could talk on that for five minutes, but I had probably better ask Doreen Grove, who was at the coalface, to answer.
Thank you for that important question. We looked at bringing in expertise that could be seen as being independent but could also provide ministers with very clear advice that was relevant to Scotland’s experience and the international experience, based on learning from research in the field.
About one third of the group were practitioners on the ground, many of whom were from Scottish organisations. However, we also brought in European expertise and expertise from the US and Australia, as well as academics who have done really solid study—not least through their involvement in work on assessing our two citizens assemblies—so that we could make sure that we were learning properly.
There were not only Scottish Government public servants; we also brought in someone from the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and people from the Parliament’s participation working group. That was very deliberate and was approved all the way through, because we had clear terms of reference that were about setting out standards and values and about looking at the overall picture.
There is a big appetite among people in Scotland to be more involved. However, as the convener suggested, that involvement cannot simply be random; it has to have focus and real impact. The working group was very clear that it was considering how that would happen; that was what sat behind its work.
Public servants were on the working group and it was chaired by Kelly McBride, whom the committee has met. There was a set of equal voices, but we needed expertise that does not sit in the Government, which is why we brought in external expertise.
Obviously, the Government has not yet published a response, but what, in general terms, is your overall reaction to the report?
Doreen Grove and I were talking about that on the way here. As with all things in life, it is probably best that we step back and look at the information, at this stage. Given the public’s expectation, if we get it wrong at this stage we will not recover. The convener alluded to that earlier. We will therefore take our time to make sure that we get the process correct so that we can deliver for the people who will be involved.
It struck me, when I was talking to people who were involved in previous citizens assemblies, how enthusiastic they were about absolutely everything to do with the process and how they felt that it had engaged them politically again. For us, that is obviously important. Politicians can all fall out and discuss the various points of the day, but the public can take a step back from the process, which is one of the advantages of participatory democracy. We will make sure that we get it right and will take time to deal with the issues.
Doreen Grove might have something to add—or she might contradict everything that I said.
Oh, would I dare? I would, in fact, to be fair.
It is important to make sure that we learn the lessons, and there is a lot of work to do to make sure that we do. For example, we really have to learn in relation to independent governance of such processes. Independent governance must be at a distance from the Government and the Parliament, but we need to ensure that there is an impact. In putting the processes in place we have created a set of standards and values that have been set out by the IPDD group. We are working our way through them, so that we can come back to the committee with a clear view of how things will operate, and so that we avoid creating expectations that cannot be met.
Although you are being slightly circumspect about your overall reaction to the report, would you go so far as to say that you feel that the group fulfilled your expectations and fulfilled the brief that was set for it?
We would. As I said in my opening remarks, we thank the group for its work, which gives us an opportunity to reflect; it has given us pause for thought. You might be surprised to hear that the Government does not believe that it has a monopoly on good ideas. It is always interesting to hear what others have to say.
The short answer to your question is yes.
That is now in the Official Report; I am sure that we will all take great pleasure in quoting that back to you.
You will. It will not be the first time or the last time.
We will do that at the appropriate time, to test the water. I will dabble my toes in the waters of that statement and will see what response I get, at the appropriate time.
I understand, having participated in the work of the parliamentary commission and in other events, that it is easy to set up a timeline. We set up timelines using parliamentary structures because we anticipate, in a sense, what we might be about to hear, and we therefore think that we can benchmark when the next milestone will be. However, in the evidence that you are hearing, you will hear fresh thoughts, challenges and ideas that might contradict views that people have held before. As you are reflecting, do you have in your mind an idea of when the Government will be able to indicate formally what its thoughts on the report are?
As I said previously, I cannot give you a timeline at this stage, because I want to ensure that we get things correct right from the start. I am a strong believer in public participation in the political process, but we need to ensure—exactly as the convener said at the beginning of the meeting—that people’s expectations are correct. I cannot commit myself at this stage. I am not being difficult; had I an idea in my head about a timeline, I would tell you. I want to ensure that we get things correct.
I conclude from what you have said that we are not looking at anything happening imminently; there will be a reasonable period of time before we see a properly considered response.
Yes.
Thank you.
A major point has been raised about wider and deeper engagement with local government. What is the Government’s response to the recommendation about deeper engagement?
I come from a local government background. I was previously a councillor, and my first experience of such engagement was as a councillor. Local authority staff went to various groups and said, “These are our plans for the next year. What do you think?” I was one of the few councillors who turned up at every event, which was mainly because I enjoyed the engagement and liked seeing what was happening.
I can give a perfect example of that. Following the Bute house agreement, one of the subjects that the citizens assembly discussed was how to deal with local government finance. It will be interesting to see what the public come up with. Let us not kid ourselves: as politicians, that is something that we have discussed and have had various ideas about—certainly, over the past decade. It will be interesting to see what the public do when they get all the facts and everything is put in front of them. I will be interested in that. We will always work with COSLA on that area, in particular.
I am always one for considering different ways to approach things. This is not necessarily just about citizens assemblies. We can also consider using people’s panels, at which we could have engagement on a smaller scale. It is about engaging with the public and ensuring that they feel listened to.
As a politician, one of the things that I was interested in when I first came into post last year was work on the citizens assembly and Scotland’s future—it was one of the first bits of work that I read. I said to Doreen Grove then that I was, as a politician, trying to find bits on which I can deliver. That was in order to ensure—as the convener said—that we could meet the expectation that something will be delivered. I found it very difficult to pick something on which I could say, “I can deliver X, Y and Z”, because the subject is so complex.
10:15One of the things that I have learned is that, as ministers, when we are asking questions, we should define things clearly. The question that was posed on local government finance in the citizens assembly was defined so that people could consider it. I could give examples of questions—such as on end-of-life choices—that we politicians have difficulty with, on which there are differences of opinion, and which people feel passionate about. I use end-of-life choices just as an example; I am not saying that there is a plan for a citizens assembly on that, but that considering such questions gives us real ideas about where we can go with them.
I have learned that less is more when asking such questions; you can get more value that way, from my perspective. I have gone off on a tangent, Mr Sweeney. In effect, what I am trying to say is that I believe that we should engage with local government on that example. However, we can work with local government on public participation in other ways as well.
What is the Government’s view on how that fits into the wider open government plan? In particular, how do you see monitoring and evaluation working?
We talked about evaluation earlier on. We must ensure value for the people who are involved. It has struck me, when speaking to people who have been involved in a citizens assembly, that it is as though their eyes have been opened to a whole new world. Previously, politics and the political process were not for them, but all of a sudden their eyes have been opened. I want to keep that going.
However, at the same time we need to ensure that we can deliver something. If I am critical of how questions were asked previously—although I was not in post at the time—it is because they were massive questions, so it was difficult to distil information and deliver something, so that we could say, “You said that, and we have delivered on it.”
Mr Carlaw might be thinking that I am going back to our car sales backgrounds in saying that, but it is important. A councillor in Paisley, Jim Mitchell, used to say, “George Adam thinks it’s like selling cars all the time”, but the process is about people and we have to work with them in a certain way. The important thing is that we deliver, so that people feel that they get value from the process. As a minister, I hope to be able to move things in that direction.
I want to ask more about the Government’s specific governance arrangements for the exercise, to ensure that you achieve the satisfactory outcomes that you envisage.
I will bring in Doreen Grove.
I am also happy to answer the general open government question, if that would be helpful. Open government is something that we, as a country, signed up to four or five years ago. It is about how we do government—how we are held to account and why transparency is important. However, the last little bit of open government is about how people can participate. Therefore, absolutely front and centre of what we are trying to do is the creation of a public service that is confident and competent, in order that it can involve people effectively. That does not mean having everybody in every room; it means looking across the piece at how we create effective ways to get people involved.
We see that as being very strongly supportive of representative government, much as the participatory work that you in Parliament do is. It is about getting the right questions answered. Transparency around the process also provides the scrutiny that Paul Sweeney just asked about. We are very clear about that. The IPDD working group proposed an oversight committee, much like the one that oversees the participatory budgeting process, of which I am sure members are aware. That committee will bring in a range of expertise. Because of the importance of Parliament, you will see that the IPDD report recommended a role for this committee, or whatever committee is relevant to the issue that the citizens assembly is considering. The work should be on that sort of scale and there should be a clear route for the process.
As we form the response, we are keen to set out for the committee where the lines will be, who will do what, how it will be done and how we can demonstrate the clear independence of governance that would give you that satisfaction.
Thank you very much for that. I want to ask a bit more about how that fits into the wider agenda on participative and deliberative democracy. How does the report fit into that wider vision or objective?
It does so very clearly. The working group emerged because, as Mr Adam said, the Scottish Government is already leading in the UK, and we work quite a lot internationally with the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and others, on looking at how deliberative democracy can be established and how it can be supportive in helping to work through complex issues. The working group was set up in order to learn those lessons, bring in the examples and set out how we can do deliberative democracy here in ways that support the Government’s priorities and support better decision making. It is about how we create that infrastructure and what it means to have a responsible way of thinking about how to involve people in decisions that affect their lives. If the infrastructure does not do that, it is wasted. Therefore, the work absolutely fits with the community empowerment agenda and the development around participatory budgeting. We are trying to make sure that it links right across to outcomes because, if outcomes are not improved by it, we have to find another method.
However, it is not just about one method; we use all sorts of methods, including user research, design thinking, our improvement processes, citizens juries, citizens assemblies and people’s panels. It is about finding the right one to tackle the scale of the task. As Mr Adam said, it is about being really thoughtful about what that task is. Not everything needs to go to a citizens assembly, because not everything is appropriate for that scale of event. However, we are really thoughtful about how we make sure that all of that kind of work is properly inclusive. What mechanisms will get people involved who are not generally involved in decision making? How do we do that? How do we make sure that we are going to the people who are furthest from Government, in order to make sure that we pick everyone up on the way back in?
At the committee’s most recent session on this subject, you heard from Talat Yaqoob, who set that out very carefully. Within Government, we are trying to look at all of the advice from the Royal Society of Edinburgh, Talat and others to make sure that inclusivity is meaningful and that it is not just a word. It is about fitting that advice into how we develop the participants, how we think about the ways that the participation happens and how we present ourselves in the room. It is also about being thoughtful about where we hold the events, whether that is online or in person. In addition, it is about what support we put in place for participants to make sure that they can take part. That kind of pastoral care makes sure that participation can happen effectively.
Doreen Grove brings up a valid point, which is one of the points that I brought up earlier about the make-up of citizens assemblies and various organisations. From my time in local government, I remember that, a lot of the time, the usual suspects turned up at absolutely everything. David Torrance is nodding, because he remembers that from those days as well.
In relation to the young people’s assembly that we were talking about, one of the first things that I asked Doreen was, “How do we get the young man and woman from Ferguslie Park?” I used the term “the hard-to-reach people”, and Doreen, quite rightly, corrected me at that stage and said, “That language is part of the problem, because you are saying that they are hard to reach.” That is just shorthand that we use as politicians.
How do we make those assemblies valid and get those people involved? It goes back to ensuring that that requirement is enshrined as part of the process of how assemblies are delivered, and making sure that the question that we are asking means something to the individuals. I am not saying that it will be easy, because it is challenging, but it is one of the things that I want to make sure of. I do not want to have a room full of people for whom it is yet another organisation or thing that they have got involved in, because I do not think that we would get the value that we really need.
In reflecting on those points, you raise a valid point about the inherent tension between representative democracy and participative democracy. There are inevitably conflicts. We can all sit here and notionally say, “Oh, it’d be great if everybody just agreed”—we might think that, if we just throw everybody into the process, it will spit out a harmonious outcome. In reality, however, that is very rarely the outcome. In politics, there are relationships and dynamics in conflict, and the potential for tyranny, whether by a majority or a minority.
I am keen to understand a bit more about, and hear your honest reflections on, the limitations of this approach. I will highlight one example that always strikes me—well, there are actually two. In my experience, participatory budgeting can often be an exercise in which those with the sharpest elbows win. Whoever can hustle the most people to an event—
Doreen Grove has sharp elbows, right enough.
There are things like that.
Another example that I often encounter relates to the planning process. There are consultation events and opportunities to engage, but it is only when people suddenly realise that construction has started, and wonder why they did not know about it, that we get the emails and the agitation about why something is suddenly happening. We might say, “Well, you should have got in touch six months ago when the guy was at the community centre with those notice boards about it all.” They say, “I know, but I didn’t know anything about it.”
There are already these types of defective examples. Does the Government recognise where the limitations are and how to address them?
I agree. Sometimes, we are going to ask questions, and we will get answers that we probably do not expect, as you say. As I have already said, it will be extremely interesting to see what a citizens assembly on local government finance comes back with when its members are presented with all the facts in front of them. It might not necessarily be an answer that any of us in this room would think that it might be.
On how we deal with and manage these things, I always use this example. Again, when I was a councillor, I was on Renfrewshire access panels for those with disabilities—there were such panels all over Scotland. Initially, I went into the room and found angry people who were not being listened to by the local authority. I got to the stage of getting them involved, exactly as you say. I said, “The town hall’s being renovated and you’re part of the planning process—get in there and find out how we can make it accessible.” It is about ensuring that people can be involved and actually deliver something. That is always going to be the most important thing.
Is that easy to achieve? No. Is it challenging? Yes, but nothing good in life that is worth doing is easy. We are all used to the political process—as you quite rightly said, Mr Sweeney—and how we deal with such things, but this is a completely different animal. It is a situation in which the public may, on certain occasions, give us answers that we will be surprised by. Is that a bad thing? Not necessarily. Does Government need to take those answers seriously when they come in? Yes, it does. Will that be challenging as we go forward? Probably, but we need to roll up our sleeves and get on with it.
I will add to that, if it would be helpful. There are examples around the world of where politicians are involved in this sort of thing. In Brussels, some members of Parliament are involved in their citizens assembly. We will get the learning from that; it is really important that we learn from such examples.
Power is not a zero-sum game. We have clear evidence from the World Bank that, where politicians get involved in putting in place effective ways for the public to get involved, they are more likely to be elected. Some of the beliefs are myths, and we need to be mindful of that. What we are trying to do is build a process that fits with our current representative processes. It is not about creating something that is in competition with them.
Good morning, minister. What is the Government’s view on the group’s definitions? Does the minister see any issues with not being definitive? The reason that I asked that is because when I asked Kelly McBride about that point, the group acknowledged that there was no one set of agreed definitions that could be used as best practice. How does the Government see that working?
Best practice in regard to what?
With regard to all the actions and international best practice that makes sense for the definitions.
10:30
As Doreen Grove said, we regularly look to international experience to try to find out what is best practice. I am sorry if I am repeating myself, but this is not going to happen overnight. We need to ensure that we get to a place where it is right, proper and delivers what we and—more important—the public want it to deliver. Will that always be simple? Probably not. It would be difficult to define it, but I understand why they came to that conclusion. Doreen, do you want to come in on that?
The working group considered a set of definitions, and Kelly McBride is right that there is no internationally agreed set. The OECD did some fantastic work—which Scotland was part of—that looked at what has been described as the “deliberative wave” around the world. There are a set of definitions of process, and we can define what we mean by that, but it is important that we do so collaboratively, in Scotland, so that it makes sense here and so that everyone’s understanding is the same.
We have a set of definitions of what a citizens assembly, a citizens jury and a people’s panel are, and those definitions will change, but the point is about innovation and finding better ways to do stuff. Those definitions will change and we will constantly look at international parallels. Scotland has played an active part in that international work and in thinking about how we align it to existing systems, because every system is different. Definitions kind of matter, but they are a moving target and we will keep our eyes on that. We will also try to agree on what the definitions mean in Scotland. This is not about Government setting out a blueprint that others have to follow; it is about doing things collaboratively.
You will have seen that some of the ambitions in the IPDD are about collaborative work in future, and that is because we recognise that the Government does not have all the answers and that Scotland needs to look at the longer-term strategy to build capacity and understanding—as the RSE said.
If David Torrance is looking for a definition, I like what Doreen said: “Better ways to do stuff.” That sums up everything we have spoken about for the last few minutes.
Sorry, I am a fairly basic Geordie.
Well, it works for me.
Does the Government agree that the commitments in the programme for government and the Covid recovery strategy can be more effectively delivered with routine use of participative democracy, and if so, how?
The perfect example comes from one of the people’s panels that we did on the lived experience of those with Covid, because it was an example of horses for courses. At that stage, we thought a people’s panel would be the best way to get the information that we needed from members of the public who lived with Covid. Politicians get caught in the bubble of Parliament, so the panel gave us an opportunity to look at how the public dealt with Covid. The long and short answer is that participatory democracy is an important part of Covid recovery and we could use it as an option to enable us to deliver the commitments and listen to people.
As the minister knows, I am keen to get out of the bubble from time to time.
I know that only too well.
Indeed. Citizens assemblies are one of a number of different ways to achieve that objective. What key lessons have been learned from them?
The lesson that I learned from the ones that we have had is on the complexity of the questions. We need to find ways to allow the public to debate complex issues.
I think that it was the Republic of Ireland that held a citizens assembly on abortion. It looked at a very difficult question for people in Ireland, and the process delivered on that. Sometimes, it might be helpful for us as politicians to do that to consider issues that we have had difficulty with, regardless of party politics. That might be a way for us to listen to what the public say. I used the example of end-of-life choices as a perfect example of a matter on which, we are led to believe, the public has a specific opinion. However, the Parliament seems to see the issue differently, considering the votes on Margo MacDonald’s bill on end of life assistance in the previous parliamentary session. Citizens assemblies can be very helpful on that front, but, again, it comes down how the question is put. It is not so much about keeping the question simple but about having the assembly in a way that allows us to have the discussion and move on.
The first two citizens assemblies on climate change and Scotland’s future were complex. Scotland’s future and saving the planet: those are big, big questions. If you have read what came out of those assemblies, you will know that they were very complex. There was no definitive statement, such as, “We want you to do X, Y and Z.” It might just be me, but I am trying to think about how I can deliver on what the public have said. For me, that is the big important part. Doreen Grove has been involved on a daily basis with all the groups, so she will probably be able to give you more detail.
One of the things that I would like us all to learn is how effective people were at dealing with very complex issues. A response that we often get from experts is: “This is too complicated for people to understand.” That is simply not the case. I will use the example that the minister gave. The Irish Convention on the Constitution met to consider a series of difficult constitutional issues, and the convention said, “We will do that, but we would also like to look at these other two issues”, which were abortion and same-sex marriage. The processes were designed to set matters out in a way that people could properly understand. The issue of abortion in particular was very toxic for almost any politician in Ireland to deal with. However, in the end, the whole process of a citizens assembly is about respectfully hearing each other’s views, getting a shared understanding of the evidence and coming to some conclusions.
Therefore, the recommendations from our two citizens assemblies are being looked at across Government. As Mr Adam says, those will not be delivered in one big bang, but we are absolutely taking them seriously and looking at how they can be delivered. It is a mix of a much more credible set of policies around particular issues, because you are dealing with people who will be most affected by the policies. People are able to look at complex issues, provided that they are given sufficient evidence and time to debate them.
We are all facing more populist Governments and misinformation. This process gives people the opportunity to hear evidence and to hear really clear explanations. It is really important that the process is balanced—it must be a cross-party process. It must be set out in a way that allows the participants to look at the issues and not the politics around them—that really matters.
I will back up what Doreen said. The process gives Government the opportunity to look at complex and difficult problems and to make decisions on those, once the public has considered them.
How is the Government going to address the report’s points on inclusion and equalities?
I will ask Doreen Grove to answer that.
That is part of a really clear programme of work in Government on inclusion and the mainstreaming of inclusion. The work will connect to the process. As I am sure that you are aware, citizens assemblies are randomly selected, but, in all instances, they are also weighted to ensure that we have a broad cross-section of the population, and we specifically seek to overrepresent people who will be more seriously affected by the matter that we are dealing with. Therefore, we will work that out in each instance, but we have a set of principles that will be applied. That work connects clearly to that whole programme of mainstreaming equalities, which absolutely runs across Government.
I remind Mr Ewing what I said about the children and young people’s assembly that we plan to do. We will ensure that young people from throughout Scotland will be included regardless of where they come from and live. That is important. The equality and inclusion aspect of the work is extremely important to get a balanced view. It also means that we do not get the usual suspects turning up at various events.
Is it not easy to reach out to children in what I think you said we can no longer call “hard-to-reach areas”? At least everybody knows what “hard to reach” means. Children tend to be in schools and, if you visit schools, you can reach the hard-to-reach children there because they have to go. Is that not a simple answer to a question that has been made too complex?
Many of the children and young people whom we are talking about have, we would admit, a cynical view of politicians and politics. I will use the example of young people in Ferguslie Park in Paisley. I might get away with going into Ferguslie Park as I am one of them, but you might have difficulty, Mr Ewing. I have given a perfect example: because I am one of them, they would talk to me. However, we need to ensure that, as Government, we can engage with them and get them involved in the process.
Doreen Grove seems to be itching to say something.
Government talks mostly to proxies: people who head up organisations that work with certain groups of people. The work that we are discussing is about going beyond that. That is not to say that working with stakeholders is not right. In some places, that is exactly what we will do but, in the sort of circumstance that we are discussing, we will find people who are not involved in any particular way.
Yes, of course we can go to schools. The Children’s Parliament did the work on the children’s element of Scotland’s Climate Assembly, which was extraordinarily impactful. It did that in a really different way. It reached out to the islands, Highlands and urban centres.
We are trying to address the issue in a range of different ways but it will certainly be about reaching people that we do not normally reach.
We return to where we began, to an extent, because Mr Stewart is keen to pursue some of the issues that relate to the recommendations and press a little further.
A wide range of recommendations on participation and understanding of the shared process have come out of the review. It would be good to get an overview of the Government’s views on the recommendations. Are the recommendations to be implemented in full? Do you have any timescales for implementation? Are there any that you would find difficult to deal with and might disregard?
No, we have no timescales at this stage. We appreciate the work that the IPDD did, and we will need to consider it in detail and ensure that we get things right. There will probably be difficult things in among all the recommendations. Nothing is ever easy if you are going to do it properly but, as Government, we need to suck it up, get on with it and do it at various points. As I said in response to the convener’s question, we will step back, look at the recommendations and ensure that we create the process that will deliver what the public wants.
Does the Government have a top priority from the recommendations? Is there one area where you think, “That’s where we need to be going and where we are going to go first”?
Nothing jumps out from the recommendations as being the go-to, other than the fact that I want to get this right. I want the work to be of value to those involved in the process and I want to ensure that I, as a minister, can say that I was part of that process and that we managed to deliver something that changed our democracy for the better.
10:45
In the report, there is the idea of creating a unit with responsibility for participation. Has the Government done any costings of the implementation of the report’s recommendations, including in relation to the proposed new unit? It is important to ensure that the recommendations can be effectively managed, and that can happen only if there are resources and proposals to support that unit and make it a reality.
Doreen Grove and I were having that very conversation as we came in. She will articulate that a lot better than I could.
There are a couple of things in there. We know how much staff and resource went into each of the citizens assemblies. We know that there is a need for some of that and that, if we are to make good use of skills and expertise, we need to centralise things. At the moment, we are looking across Government at where the existing expertise is, what can be pulled together in order to properly support the unit, and what more we need. That is not set out very clearly at the moment, but we will look carefully at that recommendation in order to see how that expertise be brought to bear, to make sure that we have independent governance and oversight.
We have not done a direct costing of that, although the committee has of course seen the published costs of the citizens assemblies and it will not be so different from that. In the end, it will save us funding if there is central expertise, because we are not building it up and then losing it.
In addition, this kind of participative work creates a way of getting policies that deal with the problem of fiscal failure. If we have better policies, that will help us with our budget in the longer term.
As you identified, it will take time, but there is a track record of how things have been managed previously.
Some of the recommendations have implications for the Parliament itself. It would be good to get a flavour of how you are engaging with the Parliament to ensure that the recommendations that have an effect here become a reality, and that we will see improvements in the process for the Parliament in managing the situation.
I agree, Mr Stewart. This committee, and its evolution into what it is now, is a perfect example of the Parliament being involved in participation. As you know, it has obviously gone from being the petitions committee to now being the key committee for all such engagement.
The Scottish Government believes that we need to work with the Parliament to ensure value for the process, which is what it is all about. If we are to deliver anything that comes from the citizens assemblies or any of those types of groups, we need to have in Parliament the processes through which we can do that. It goes without saying that we need to ensure that we work with the parliamentary authorities, of which—as I said—this committee is a perfect example.
The “key committee”—I am sure that you flatter to deceive, minister.
Mr Byrne, you have been listening patiently to the evidence presented by the minister and your colleague. Do you want to contribute any reflections as we come to the end of our evidence session?
On that last point, as the committee will have noted, in the response to the Citizens Assembly of Scotland—for which my team was the sponsor division—we pointed to the constitutional significance of some of the recommendations for the Parliament, and that it needs to work with Parliament in taking those forward.
To pick up Mr Sweeney’s point about how a participative democracy system works with the representative parliamentary democracy system, making those two systems match together is the challenge for this committee as it looks forward. That is my contribution, which is, obviously, poorer than those of Doreen Grove and the minister.
That shows Mr Byrne’s years of civil service training. [Laughter.]
Since members have no final thoughts or additional questions, I thank the minister and officials. We very much appreciate your contribution to the key committee that is considering these issues this morning.
10:50 Meeting suspended.Air ais
AttendanceAir adhart
Continued Petitions