Chamber and committees

To ask the Scottish Government how it monitors the overall effectiveness of financial memorandums. (S6O-02657)

Significant changes in projected spend, such as the 50 per cent uplift for the Children (Care and Justice) (Scotland) Bill and the Victims, Witnesses, and Justice Reform (Scotland) Bill, indicate too little up-front detailed policy analysis. The large ranges in estimates also indicate considerable uncertainty.

Speaking as a member of the Finance and Public Administration Committee, I am concerned about the general quality of the FMs that are being presented to us. In an extremely tight fiscal environment, that suggests the need for more rather than less up-front planning. Is it time to look again at the guidance that is being offered to ministers?

I noted the minister’s point about finance. Will he share with me what activities he has been doing to ensure that the right finance with the right risk profile is available for small and medium-sized businesses, given that we want that breadth and diversity of providers?

The independence of the inquiry is paramount. However, the need to gather accurate and reflective detail can lead to long timescales for any inquiry. Can the Deputy First Minister set any expectations as to timescales for the relatives who are desperate for answers?

I would like to make a comment on post-legislative scrutiny. The Parliament is still struggling with that, for good reason, because of the complexity and the multiple variables whereby decisions are made about policies where there are reserved and devolved powers and so on. How much more deeply did the committee look at the type of post-legislative scrutiny that might be appropriate for a citizens assembly?

Will the member give way?

As members will know, I often refer to academic sources when researching for speeches. Thanks to Carnegie Europe, I now know the following:

“the principles of deliberation and sortition are not new. Rooted in ancient Athenian democracy, they were used throughout various points of history until around two to three centuries ago. Evoked by the Greek statesman Pericles in 431 BCE, the ideas”

are

“that ‘ordinary citizens, though occupied with the pursuits of industry, are still fair judges of public matters’ and that instead of being a ‘stumbling block in the way of action ... [discussion] is an indispensable preliminary to any wise action at all’”.

So this is not a new idea.

I read the Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee’s report with great interest and, like others, I extend my congratulations to the authors, the participants, the participation and communities team, the advisers and the committee itself.

Since becoming an MSP, I have said that we need to make this place sing with a thousand different voices, both literally and metaphorically. As an aside, I note that the starting up of the Scottish Parliament choir, which will begin next Wednesday, 1 November at 1 pm in committee room 2—don’t miss it—will go some way towards that. Seriously, however, the extension to the involvement of the people who really count—our citizens—is extremely important. Let us hear them all sing.

I will comment on a few points that struck me. First, I propose to consider further the barriers to participative and deliberative democracy, rather than just the report’s recommendations and various themes. Three barriers resonated with me in particular: fear, representation and trust.

I believe that all of us here consistently underestimate people’s fear of speaking up in public. Despite our claiming, perhaps in a self-congratulatory way, that we are all Jock Tamson’s bairns, the fact is that, from the outside looking in, we are not. The way that we speak and our strange mannerisms and conventions appear inaccessible to many. Many of us here are well educated, but how often do we stop to consciously consider how our accents sound to ordinary Scots? I remember, just recently, being reminded by Darren McGarvey about his great work in the series “Class Wars” to drive our understanding of the impact of a working-class Glasgow accent.

Only the other day, I spoke to my colleague Emma Harper about what is, frankly, the bullying that she receives via social media for her sterling efforts to promote our Scots language. For women, who have been taught subliminally to take their place, often behind the men and after they have spoken, that must represent a particular challenge. I note that, even in this debate, only 16 per cent of the attendees are women.

The next barrier that struck me was representation. There is considerable complexity in getting together a group—any group—that can genuinely be a representative sample of our multicultural, multifaceted, urban and rural, Highland and lowland Scotland.

However, perhaps the most important barrier is that of trust, which is imperative if our politicians and our Parliament are to make people’s voices heard, yet it is lacking at the present time. There are 21 uses—

That is an excellent point, with which I whole-heartedly agree.

I was about to mention that there are 21 uses of the term “trust” in the report, and rightly so. We must acknowledge how many people have lost trust in politicians in the political process and, by extension, their legislatures. Sometimes I despair as we go along in the hurly-burly of our politics, in which people challenge each other without thinking what that says to people outside about trust in their legislature. We need to be very careful about that. We need to maintain such trust, for it underpins and is the guardian of democracy.

I would add one group to that list, and that is journalists. The report notes that getting them more engaged would help to spread knowledge. Building the knowledge of journalists is valuable. I still encounter multiple instances where they either do not appear to, or perhaps choose not to, understand, for example, governance, or the separation of the Government and the judiciary—that appears to be an issue with MSPs, too—or concepts such as the fiscal framework.

On another note, I mentioned earlier that I consider the report to be a good one. Costs have been carefully considered, which is vital, as we are living in very constrained times. I notice with favour the consideration of governance and accountability, and that model must be maintained. I completely agree with other members’ comments about the proliferation of roles such as those of commissioners.

Moving on, the report notes that legislation will require Government and cross-party commitment. A common framework to measure impact was suggested. That must evolve over time, based on a thorough and committed feedback loop. On Martin Whitfield’s comment in which he expressed disappointment at the proposed timescales, I take a different view. It is clear to me that the proposal must proceed with cross-party buy-in and the folding in of best practice and learning as we go along.

I am moving to a close, Presiding Officer—I have just a couple more comments. I suspect that Jackson Carlaw’s legendary sense of humour contributed to the writing of the report, which notes that

“there can be a tendency for attitudes within the ‘Holyrood bubble’ to become out of step with the views of ordinary people across the country.”

I think that that will win understatement of the year. There is also consideration of a travelling exhibition—hopefully, it will not be our oddest MSPs on display.

Seriously, though, I will conclude there. Both participative and deliberative democracy are vital to enhancing scrutiny, and they enshrine the vital link between citizens, our legislature and democracy. On that note, I say that I embrace the principle whole-heartedly.

Will the minister confirm the rumour that the next visit will be to Ferguslie Park?

[Inaudible.]—finance committee, but, if he does not mind me saying, perhaps that is missing the point, because perhaps we are too ready to have concluded what the answer is without allowing people to make their voices heard. Would he concede that?