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.

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

As I said previously, I cannot give you a timeline at this stage, because I want to ensure that we get things correct right from the start. I am a strong believer in public participation in the political process, but we need to ensure—exactly as the convener said at the beginning of the meeting—that people’s expectations are correct. I cannot commit myself at this stage. I am not being difficult; had I an idea in my head about a timeline, I would tell you. I want to ensure that we get things correct.

Yes.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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