Plenary, 01 Jun 2000

Meeting date: Thursday, June 1, 2000

Official Report 617KB pdf

---

Civic Participation

The next item of business is a statement by Jack McConnell on civic participation.

Thank you, Presiding Officer. I would like to make a statement on the Executive's policy on civic participation.

This Parliament was elected on a promise: that policy making would be more open, participative and consultative. That is what the people of Scotland expect of us. Our success in meeting the promise of openness and accessibility will be a litmus test of our achievement of the wider aspirations for devolution.

We can no longer hide behind remoteness. We have no excuses for not meeting public expectations of the new politics of partnership—because partnership politics means better policies. I want inclusive and consultative policy making to be at the centre of our 21st-century Government agenda. The Executive is already acting to give that vision substance.

I announced some months ago that we would fund the Scottish Civic Forum to the tune of £300,000 over three years, and we remain committed to supporting the forum and working with it in the years ahead. I wish to take this opportunity to congratulate Campbell Christie, who has been elected convener of the Civic Forum, and the other members who have been elected to it in recent weeks.

We envisage the forum as a reliable source of advice, for both the Executive and the Parliament, on how all relevant interests can have their say in what we do. If the forum succeeds in that, this new venture in participation will have proved its worth. Its success will be measured by the credibility that it develops in civic Scotland, and by the funding that it attracts to replace the pump-priming support from the Executive.

However, the Civic Forum will not replace the Executive itself as the only source of policy ideas. We see it as complementary to a raft of other initiatives to increase public participation in decision making, and the Scottish ministerial team is embracing the politics of participation.

We want to improve how we access the voice of young people. An early focus for that will be the youth summit later this month—a chance for young people to have their say and to tell us how we can sustain a dialogue with them.

We are working with Napier University teledemocracy centre to establish an electronic democracy site to survey young people's views. The site invites young people to record their opinions and to vote on priorities. It is a good new approach to encouraging young people to engage actively in the democratic process.

We are looking for ways to open up our public appointments system, so that more people have the chance to participate in public life. Our consultation on that issue closed recently, and I look forward to discussing the way forward with the Parliament.

We are using the people's panel to test the views of the people of Scotland on their experience of public services, and we are considering ways of increasing involvement and widening the participation of older people in particular, so that their concerns are heard and their contribution is recognised.

We are also working to help communities find a voice on the matters that concern them. The working for communities programme is encouraging new ways of involving communities in decisions on services in their area, and the listening to communities programme promotes community participation. The programme is funding the establishment of local people's panels in a range of social inclusion partnerships, to give local people a say in the actions that are taken in their area, and it is funding people's juries to allow in-depth discussion of local issues by local people to inform the decisions taken by public bodies.

Our commitment to civic participation is such that we want more than a series of ad hoc measures. Too often, consultations can appear as glossy documents circulated to the usual suspects, often with deadlines that are far too tight. That is not good enough. The Scottish people and this Parliament rightly demand more.

We are now more than a year into devolution. It is increasingly important that we refine our civic participation policy. Last month, the Scottish Cabinet committed itself to a series of concrete actions to improve how we consult on our policies. The document that we discussed will be published in full on the internet.

This is not about consultation overload, but it is about smarter consultation, building on the existing initiatives that I described. We will implement four clear, new rules for future consultations. First, we will allow more time for future consultations—12 weeks minimum, except in urgent cases or minor, routine exercises. Secondly, we will ensure that the issues on which we consult are clear and that the language is straightforward. I have spoken already to the Plain English Campaign about how it could help us to communicate more clearly, and I will make a further announcement about that soon. Thirdly, we will ensure that all those who respond to a consultation receive feedback on the outcome of the exercise. Finally, we will work with the Parliament's committees, because we want MSPs to have confidence in the Executive's consultation exercises.

We will widen access and broaden the circle of those reached by our consultations, because targeting the usual suspects is not enough. We cannot allow those most adept at managing the system to monopolise consultation.

We will make better use of the internet to widen opportunities for consultation. All our publications are already available on the web and, increasingly, consultations can be accessed and dealt with online. However, we can signpost them better and we can make the process of responding to them simpler.

We cannot be simply reactive, waiting for the public to come to us, be that by the internet or by more conventional means. We must be proactive in seeking out the views of those who have not had the time, inclination or confidence to respond in the past to the questions that the Executive asks to support its policy making. Therefore, we must be imaginative in how we consult, and a raft of bland consultation documents will not be enough. We must engage actively with our electorate, which is why, for example, I will visit the four corners of Scotland over the next month, to elicit views on the budget document, "Investing in You", starting with an event in Dumfries next Tuesday.

I believe that we can achieve a new relationship with voters between elections, with genuine dialogue and engagement, renewing confidence in politics and government. No Government has a monopoly on good sense, creativity or expertise, and we have a responsibility to the people of Scotland to harness those qualities wherever we find them, from among our own ranks or more widely in civic society. That is why the Executive is committed to improving participation in the way in which we make our policies.

We have a wide-ranging and deep commitment to sustained participation, and we want to build real dialogue among the Executive, MSPs, civic society and the people of Scotland.

Those are not quick fixes. It will take time to invigorate the practice of participation, but we see already the benefits of our commitment to participation, with policies that focus on real need and that are designed to have lasting impact, and a partnership that delivers real solutions.

We will now have questions to the minister.

I thank the minister for his statement. There is no question but that civic participation underpins this Parliament.

However, I wish to raise a couple of questions, and a couple of concerns, on the funding of the Civic Forum. As the minister said, we do not want a series of ad hoc measures for civic participation, but neither do we want an ad hoc funding structure. Therefore, it is somewhat unfortunate that, although the announcement of £300,000 for the Civic Forum was made last October, the funding was not given until 3 April 2000. Can the minister advise whether it is possible to tighten up that situation?

As we develop civic participation in Scotland, SNP members would like the Civic Forum to become involved structurally in the work of the Parliament's committees. We suggest that we should move rapidly towards that approach and that the minister should advise all committee conveners to make forceful use of the European rapporteur system. That would allow members of the Civic Forum, the business forum and the other forums to undertake work on behalf of committees. We also wish to see the proper introduction of the use of expert panels.

It was important that we reached a clear agreement on the purpose of the funding of the Civic Forum and on the way in which it would be delivered and monitored. By April, we had to respond to the Civic Forum's request to reschedule the money between years—to spread out the funding over a longer period—to enable it to build on that pump-priming money and to secure its own longer-term funding.

We have also reached an agreement with the Civic Forum about the process of reporting and engagement and, over the next few months, I hope to reach an agreement or concordat with it about its relationship with the Executive.

The relationship between the Parliament's committees and the Civic Forum is a matter that should be considered by the Parliament, the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body and the committee of conveners. I would not wish to interfere in that, but I commit ministers to supporting such engagement in every way that we can. The three-way relationship between civic society, the Parliament and the ministers who relate to each committee is vital for successful policy making.

It is for committee conveners and the corporate body to decide on the structures for involving civic society in the work of committees, and I would not want to interfere too directly in that process. At the same time, it is important that there should be a structure for that involvement. If there is not, we might fail to meet the expectations that we are creating. More important, without a structure, those who can shout loudest, who are most active or who are best resourced might have the most impact. That would be wrong. It is important that there should be equality of participation. Any structure that ensures that will be a good structure.

I, too, welcome the statement, the sentiments of which are quite laudable. However, will the Executive listen to the outcome of consultations? We have just experienced wide civic participation in the form of a referendum, but the view of more than 1 million people is being ignored.

I should also be interested to learn how community councils fit into the scheme of things. We believe that they have an important role to play, but they were not mentioned in the minister's statement.

Where does the funding for the people's panels and people's juries come from? We do not want to get into a situation where it is all consultation and no action.

The record of the whole Parliament—not just ministers—in responding to the consultation that has been carried out on legislation that has already been approved by the Parliament or is currently being considered has been good so far. During the debate on the Adults with Incapacity (Scotland) Bill, for example, we saw a genuine dialogue between interested groups, the people of Scotland and this Parliament, which produced good legislation, to which there is widespread consent, on what could have been a controversial and difficult subject for the Parliament to tackle.

Similarly, the land reform proposals are the outcome of two years' consultation and deliberation, aimed at improving the legislation and building consent for reform. That resulted in the chamber some weeks ago giving unanimous support to the first part of that package, the Abolition of Feudal Tenure etc (Scotland) Bill. The partnership that we are developing among the Parliament, the Executive and the people is making a difference to legislation. I hope that we can continue that.

The funding for the people's panels and juries has already been announced by the Minister for Communities. That funding is important, because there are communities across Scotland that need support in developing the skills and the confidence to have vocal representation. Through the social inclusion partnerships and the capacity-building work that is going on in community groups, we are giving people new opportunities and allowing them, rather than us, to be in control of their participation.

Community councils were not mentioned in the statement, but neither were local authorities, which are the other elected tier of government in Scotland. I chose deliberately not to mention them, because to pick out any particular group of representative bodies would have been wrong. I am keen for people to be involved, when that is appropriate and when they want to participate. Community councils are important bodies. I know that, as part of the debate on the McIntosh review, work is being done to ensure that they have a role, and I am keen to support that.

I welcome the Government's and the minister's commitment to being open, accessible and transparent and to encouraging consultation and participation. However, we have heard it all before. I hope that on this occasion it will not be a ritual commitment, but the minister will forgive me if we wait to see what happens in practice.

Can the minister tell us when the Civic Forum will finally meet? It has been an awfully long time getting off the ground, despite its large budget.

What is the difference between a people's panel and a people's jury? How will people be appointed to them to ensure that they are representative? The last thing that we want is for them to be giant focus groups paid for by the public.

Can the minister assure us that—heaven forfend—the consultation will not be elitist? Relatively few people have access to the internet.

I commend the minister's criticism of the Executive's glossy documents. One might almost call it self-criticism, as lately he has been the principal culprit, having just produced "Investing in You", which retails at a very user-friendly £16.50. Does the minister agree that although it is important that documents are user-friendly, substance is as important as style? I am sure that he will never dream of importing the worst of Whitehall's habits—much worse than Westminster's—and recycle old money, pretending that it is new.

We would never dream of doing such a thing. I welcome the questions and the support, however cynical it might appear. I hope that we can dispel that cynicism in the months ahead.

As I understand it, the difference between people's panels and people's juries is that the panels seek opinions on specific matters from a representative sample of people. The juries look at matters in more depth, hear witnesses, ask questions and produce a report. That is an important difference, and one that presumably serves different purposes in different circumstances.

The Civic Forum will meet, as I understand it, for the first time on Saturday 10 June. Among others who are involved, Mr Raffan's colleague Margaret Smith, the convener of the Health and Community Care Committee, is one of the representatives who will be there. I am sure that she will pass on his views.

There is a case for producing comprehensive documents that are clearly presented. It is important that we do not create the impression—and however right or wrong it is, the impression can sometimes be there—that consultation is about the publishing of a document and the publicity for it, rather than about hearing views on the document.

We need to ensure that when documents are published by the Executive, they are professionally produced, but that they also clearly explain the consultation process with regard to what people are being asked and how they can respond. Such documents should also explain that we give as much credence to, and put as much effort into, taking the views that come in as a result of a document's publication as we do to publishing it in the first place.

If we do that, we will improve consultation. I must say, however, that across public life—not just ministers, but other public bodies and other levels of government—people are learning about and improving on this matter all the time. I hope that through such dialogue and through the experience of publishing some of those documents we can improve further.

I commend everything that the minister said about civic participation. Like him, I believe that it should be one of the defining characteristics of this Parliament.

The minister mentioned electronic democracy. Is he aware that the Public Petitions Committee is piloting, along with Napier University, a new system called e-petitioner, which allows petitions to be lodged with this Parliament electronically, and which also allows debates to be generated on those petitions on the web? Does he agree that that is one of the ways in which civic participation should develop in Scotland? Further, does he agree that the role of the Public Petitions Committee is absolutely vital to civic participation in this Parliament, and should have the support of everyone?

It is a matter for the Parliament to decide which committees it has, and MSPs should express views on that. Petitioning the Parliament is important. It was a fundamental founding principle of this Parliament. It is an integral part of the way in which we want to conduct our business. The committee plays an important role at the moment. Engagement with people across Scotland is important, and is regularly commented on by our constituents from every part of Scotland.

E-petitions are a good innovation. The development of the internet, particularly if we can increase access to it and ensure that it is available to people across Scotland and from all walks of life, allows us to increase the potential for communication and participation in an exponential way. We need to harness electronic democracy, support it, and be part of it, and to make sure that it does not fail because of the weight of the work load that it creates. It is important that we are able to respond to it, and that we try to predict what will happen. I am delighted to hear that the Public Petitions Committee is conducting a pilot project on electronic democracy.

Surely the fundamental difference between Holyrood and Westminster is that, with no revising chamber, we have to get things right first time round. Was not the consultative steering group right to argue that this Parliament is not the sole source of policy development? While it is entirely laudatory to end the discrimination of section 2A, can it really be done by ministerial fiat? Would not it be wiser in future to collect all the voices inside the tent of the Civic Forum and our committees, and to work our way towards a consensus? Is not that real social partnership, and much more preferable to the misrepresentation and the confrontation that have so besmirched debate on section 2A in Scotland?

That will be one of the benefits of the development of the Civic Forum. As the Civic Forum starts to meet and develops that partnership with the Executive and parliamentary committees, there will be consensus and a method of developing future legislation and policy making that will be beneficial for all concerned. I hope that the partnerships that we are creating and the method of working in this Parliament will mean that in Scotland the kind of policy making that has at times in the past—not always—characterised the Westminster Parliament will be a thing of the past.

I associate myself with John McAllion's comments about the Public Petitions Committee. When we read the deliberations of the Public Petitions Committee, it is clear that people are taking the opportunity to make their voice heard through it.

In relation to the participation of young people in the process, I recently had the opportunity to participate in a stakeholder jury in my constituency. I was concerned that there was no representation of young people among those who were involved as part of the people's jury. From experience of working with young people over many years, I suggest that just to say that we will involve them more is not enough; resources, training and back-up must be provided. Will the minister say more about the youth summit and how he feels it would feed into the process?

Those are important issues in relation to young people's participation.

There is also an issue of confidence and a belief in politics, government and the ability through involvement to change things. There are political and cultural aspects as well as technical issues of training and resources. I believe that the youth parliament is a success—many of us have met our local representatives. One of the two representatives from my constituency has been elected as the convener of the youth parliament; I congratulate Steven Jack on that.

Through the youth parliament, the youth summit and a number of other initiatives, we can ensure that young people feel confident in taking part and are confident that we will listen to them when they take part. That will require resources and training, but it also requires an attitude on our part of listening to their views and encouraging them. When we act, we must act in a principled way, which builds their confidence that we are trying to change things on their behalf.

I put two concerns and one idea to Mr McConnell. First, will he give a commitment that we will not have a repeat, north of the border, of the sham consultation on the national health service south of the border, when 12 million people have been given five days to reply? That is an engagement in kidology, not consultation.

Secondly, will Mr McConnell tell us what will happen in relation to funding after the period of pump priming for the Civic Forum? What are the potential sources of funding once the Executive's money dries up? Will he guarantee that the Civic Forum will not rely in future on vested interests to fund its activities?

Thirdly, I will rekindle an old idea, from old Labour days, of an industrial parliament as part of the network of organisations to be consulted, which would bring together both sides of industry, perhaps twice a year, to examine the industrial and commercial future of Scotland. It would feed into this Parliament ideas from grass-roots trade unionists, managers and entrepreneurs about the way forward for the Scottish economy.

On the last suggestion, I was waiting for Alex Neil to use the word soviet, but I do not think that that is what he means.

I strongly support—and the Executive supports—engagement between the different sides of the industrial divide. However, I want to be careful not to step on the toes of existing organisations that could build that dialogue. There is a balance to be struck between our creating new structures and giving existing ones support to develop in that way. I will reserve my position on that specific idea, although the principle of dialogue is critical.

It is important that both we in Scotland and the Government in England and Wales consult on the future of the NHS. We have separate programmes on that, which are complementary but distinct. We in Scotland will ensure that the discussion on the future of the Scottish health service involves all those who have a direct and indirect interest in it. As ever, I am reluctant to comment on the work of another Parliament, but I hope that the current UK consultation exercise will bring vitality and a sense of direction to the reforms that will be funded by the biggest ever injection of resources into the NHS.

I am keen to ensure that the Civic Forum does not rely on the Government for funding. Alex Neil's point about vested interests would perhaps best be exemplified if we were the main funder of the Civic Forum for ever. That would be an unfortunate position. It is important that the Civic Forum should try to identify other sources of funding. Preferably, there should be a variety of sources, so that it has a sense of independence, both from us and from any of the major players or other external bodies. It is important that we provide funding in the initial years so that the Civic Forum can identify those sources of funding over a period, and does not have to rush immediately into the hands of anybody else. I hope that we have reached a good agreement on funding. We will certainly support the forum and give it ideas about where next to seek funding.

I warmly welcome the minister's statement. All members entered the Parliament to achieve effective participation by, and consultation with, the people of Scotland. Cathy Jamieson talked about young people; I wish to ask about older people, who often feel that they are left out of the consultation process. Will the minister say a little about the forums with which he hopes the Executive and the Parliament will communicate and about how we can make the process effective? I am concerned about issues such as the timing of meetings.

Obviously, in relation to older people, there are issues about the timing of meetings and consultations and the way in which they are held. Iain Gray and other colleagues have been involved in initial work as part of the UK better government for older people programme. Over the next few months, we must consider how to develop that project in Scotland. We must both participate in the UK initiative, given that there is important legislation at UK level that affects older people, and develop initiatives in Scotland. I hope that in the coming months we will be able to spell out in more detail how that will be done.