Chamber and committees

I was just going to say, after Doreen’s very public pitch for more funds, that she engages with colleagues across the world. There are yearly events: there was one in Rome last year and one in Tallinn this year. I did not manage to make it to those, incidentally. For the Rome one, I was in Aberdeen at the Scottish National Party conference, because I know the right thing to do. For the Estonia one, I had to be here to deal with the programme for government. However, it is important that we have those engagements, because we do not believe that we have every single good idea or right idea. It is about seeing how those other models might fit with us.

When you say “citizens panels”, I assume that you are talking about the assemblies.

There are other—

The direct answer to that is no, at this stage, but it is something that we have in mind to work out. One of our responses to the IPDD working group was that we are looking to get a central unit within Government that will be able to go out to the various directorates and quantify that cost. The whole point is to make sure that the very idea of open government is at the heart of each portfolio and directorate, so that they think that it is a normal part of their day-to-day work and not just something extra that has been added in from above. However, I understand that we still need to get a centralised team that is able to correlate all the information, so that I can come to you and say, “Well, that costs £X”.

Okay. To answer your first question very quickly, as I said, the £2.3 million is not our budget for public participation, so that is not the case.

How do we manage to bring it all together? As I said earlier, one of the things that came out of the IPDD working group was the fact that a lot of good work was happening in pockets all over Government. It was a case of us finding a central group that would bring all that together—how much the costs are and what we are doing—so that I can sit in front of you and say that we are doing X and Y in various directorates. We have decided that we are going to put that team in place, in order to make sure that we have that information and can do that. Can I tell you right here and now what is happening in various other places? Probably not, and definitely not off the top of my head. The whole idea is to get the culture of public participation into every part of Government. You will understand that, in an organisation of the size of the Scottish Government, that can be quite challenging.

I have experience of that, because freedom of information requests are part of my portfolio. I have seen what happens when you make such a culture change, as we have done recently, and you make sure that such activities are pushed as part of the day-to-day work of Government and not an addition. Getting the mentality of, “This is what we do. This is part of the job,” into the organisation as a whole is extremely important.

Do these things happen overnight? No, but I as minister, and Doreen Grove and her team, push for that in Government all the time. We have committed ourselves to having a centralised team. At a time when we are looking at taking resources away from various places, we will invest in that team in order to make sure that we get the detail.

Again, we are talking about a mix-up of terms and everything else with this subject. The budget line entitled “Public Information and Engagement” refers to marketing and communications, rather than public participation. That is at £2.3 million for 2023-24, compared to £2.8 million in 2021-22 and £2.7 million in 2022-23. That is not the budget for public participation; it is the budget for communications and marketing. It is nothing to do with citizens assemblies or anything like that.

You are as eloquent as ever, Mr Ewing. That is not my portfolio to discuss. I take your point that we should have a conversation, but that is for the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body and the Parliament, because they are the ones who deal with that budget, as Mr Gibson said in his question last week. For every single commissioner, there will be stakeholders who value the work that they do and understand how important it is, but you are right that there is a question to be asked and a debate to be had by us all as to how we go about such work. In New Zealand, I think, they have an office of the commissioners where they all work under one office, so you no longer have each organisation operating on its own. The Government is not looking at that; I am just aware that there are different ways of working. It is always about a balance between giving something to the stakeholders who value the work of that commissioner and what we can go forward with, looking at the finances. I agree, Mr Ewing, that it is possibly a discussion and debate that we should have in the Parliament.

As I said, we definitely need to look at having that debate. That is not a Government view; I am just looking at it personally from the point of view of how you deal with the situation in the question that you asked.

I will ask Doreen to answer that, because she is at the coalface on that issue.

Generally, coming from Mr Ewing, yes.