Chamber and committees

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.

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—

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?

I will bring in Doreen Grove.

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.

That shows Mr Byrne’s years of civil service training. [Laughter.]

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.

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.

I know that only too well.

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.