Chamber and committees

You will. It will not be the first time or the last time.

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.

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.

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.

I could talk on that for five minutes, but I had probably better ask Doreen Grove, who was at the coalface, to answer.

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 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.

One 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.

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.

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 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.