Chamber and committees

I said that the panels are not a panacea. The recommendations on the principle of deliberative democracy in people’s panels extend to the Government, too. The Government will make its own decisions on whether it wishes to pursue the idea of having a wider national forum in which people are able to participate, as happens in Ireland and Paris, and in other countries and cities that the committee visited.

Our recommendation is one for the Parliament. It is modest, because we recognise the current financial constraints. We propose that there should be four people’s panels during the next parliamentary session—one in each of the years from 2027 to 2030. Those panels should be run in line with the more detailed principles that we set out in the blueprint. The overall approach to the panels should be evaluated during session 7 in order to maintain quality, and then to determine what we might do during session 8.

That is where the question that Martin Whitfield wishes to raise is important. We have identified that the broader the subject, the less able a panel is to come to a specific conclusion. It is therefore important that the question that people are debating be tightly focused and well understood. That is what the two pilots have demonstrated. In many ways, the pilot on drugs was more successful than the one that considered the post-legislative aspects of climate change more generally. Climate change is such a huge topic that people might have been bewildered about what the focus of their inquiry should be.

We have also highlighted other areas in which we would like the work of panels to develop, particularly on ensuring that innovation and continuous improvement remain part of their approach. We are also exploring how we can best harness the extremely positive impact on individual participants in order to amplify other participation and engagement work. We have been clear that that is only one part of the overall scrutiny and engagement landscape.

I hope that I have explained to, engaged with and enthused members, as that is what I am here to do on a sunny and dry summer’s afternoon, when people’s minds stray elsewhere. However, if anyone is still unsure of the value of people’s panels, I leave them with this quote from one of the participants:

“deliberative democracy is a gift to the people of Scotland and its electorate. In Scotland, we appear to be ahead of the game compared with many countries ... In the people’s panel, we felt representative, represented, relevant and listened to”.

That is how people should feel when they engage with the Parliament; that is, in the words of one participant, the “gift” of people’s panels; and that is why I urge members to support the motion and ensure that the Scottish Parliament’s proud tradition of innovation in public participation continues incrementally and modestly in the next session of our Parliament.

I move,

That the Parliament welcomes the Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee’s 1st Report, 2025 (Session 6), A blueprint for participation - embedding deliberative democracy in the work of the Scottish Parliament (SP Paper 789), including the blueprint for this work in Session 7 with a view to making the use of such panels a regular feature of committee scrutiny from Session 7 onwards; endorses the principles for the future use of deliberative democracy that are set out in the blueprint, and acknowledges the work already being done by Parliament staff to develop and improve engagement methods.

I am grateful for the point that Maggie Chapman makes. I think that Mr Torrance is correct that the cost is quite modest. A commitment to deliberative democracy seems to me to be a far better use of money than, say, the suggestion of one of my colleagues, who is retiring, that we create a Scottish house of lords. That might give people something to do, but it would be a very expensive and less democratic route than the people’s panels and the deliberative democracy route that we are looking at.

Panels also show the Parliament at its best, by giving focused and considered attention to important issues and drawing on a wider range of diverse voices to hold the Government to account.

I entirely agree with that point and will seek to address that in my contribution.

The panels look at issues where a committee feels that the input of a panel would be useful and the panel’s report and recommendations go back to that sponsoring committee to inform its scrutiny work. I am not going to claim that people’s panels are a panacea, but it is clear from the work that my committee has undertaken that they can be an important part of the solution to a number of problems that we must address if the way in which the Parliament delivers for the people of Scotland is to evolve.

All members will be concerned about the shocking figures on people’s declining trust in politics. Last year, the National Centre for Social Research reported that the British social attitudes survey had shown that

“Trust and confidence in government are as low as they have ever been.”

Further, the “Life in the UK 20204 Scotland” report gave Scotland a democratic wellbeing score of just 39 out of 100. It found that 63 per cent of people disagreed with the proposition that they could influence decisions that affect Scotland and, sadly, that 38 per cent had low levels of trust in members of the Scottish Parliament.

From the independent evaluation of the people’s panels we know what a positive impact they have had on participants’ trust in the Parliament. I will give just one example:

“More than 90% of participants”

in the panel on climate change

“responded ‘Very’ or ‘Extremely’ to the statement: ‘I feel like participating in the People’s Panel has improved the way I feel about the Scottish Parliament and the work it does to hold the Scottish Government to account’.”

That impact is to be welcomed, but there is also potential for the impact of panels to be felt beyond individual participants, because they take their experience and knowledge back with them to their own families and communities.

Of course I will.

Given my advanced age, and in case I forget to do so otherwise, I will move the motion in my name.

I begin by referring back to the recent Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee debate on committee effectiveness, because the Minister for Parliamentary Business, who I am delighted to see will be participating in today’s debate, challenged me to delve into history because he was very disappointed that, in the committee, I had not come up with an example that predated one that had been quoted to us. I will therefore start in the fifth century BC, on the hill of Pnyx, where citizens could gather in the agora to discuss and vote on matters. Those were the first citizens assemblies, so the concept is not a new one, although it is true that diversity may have been somewhat lacking, with only men able to vote—and probably only such as those able to vote besides.

The concept of giving citizens an active role in democracy is one that the Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee has been exploring throughout this session of Parliament. Two and a half millennia on, the blueprint that we have proposed will help to embed the spirit of the Athenian agora in the work of the Scottish Parliament, which, appropriately, sits in the Athens of the north. Here, then, is an opportunity for the minister to become Scotland’s Socrates, Plato or Aristotle. I am not sure that that is exactly what I see when I look at him, but today is his opportunity to prove himself the equal of ancient Greece’s finest and I look forward to his confirmation of the same.

In all seriousness, participation is not a new principle in respect of the way in which this Parliament operates. It is in the foundations: it was one of the principles set out by the consultative steering group on the Scottish Parliament and it is part of the way that we work in the chamber and in committees.

After almost a full session of the Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee looking at how to embed participation in the work of the Parliament, I hope that the principle of public participation now sells itself, and so, this time, I am here to talk about the approach that the committee set out in our report and blueprint. Our proposals represent a relatively modest investment and are an incremental way of embedding an approach that is at the cutting edge of deliberative practice, has an incredibly positive and powerful impact on participants, supports scrutiny and can help to address some of the most important challenges that we face as a Parliament.

Since we debated our previous report in this chamber, there have been two further people’s panels. One group considered the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009 and the other group looked at reducing drug harm and drug deaths in Scotland. The panels involve groups of 25 randomly selected people who broadly represent the demographic make-up of Scotland. They do not decide things but make recommendations that the committee, Parliament and parliamentarians ultimately decide on. They are brought together to consider a particular question: they hear from experts and are supported by trained facilitators as they consider the information in front of them and agree on recommendations.

People’s panels in the Scottish Parliament context are very much tied to the scrutiny work of Parliament’s committees. They are not muscling in on the role of committees or duplicating the work being done by members.

I noted the statement that there should be no single-sex committees in the Parliament. How would Martin Whitfield ensure that that would be delivered?

I realise that, as a child of the 1950s, I am the oldest MSP contributing to the debate this afternoon, but I assure the minister that I have no first-hand recollection of the events of 1774 or earlier, so I am not able to respond to his request in quite the way that he might have expected.

I realise that a special meeting of the Parliament is taking place this afternoon in Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse, but I am immediately impressed by the quality of the contributions that I have been able to witness so far in the debate. I do not know whether there is a collective noun for conveners, but I enjoyed hearing from Audrey Nicoll, Richard Leonard and, of course, Kenny Gibson. I join in Stephen Kerr’s tribute to Kenny Gibson. It is my job—as it was once yours, Deputy Presiding Officer—to present, on behalf of the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body, the Parliament’s budget to the Finance and Public Administration Committee each year. I am always a model of circumspection and moderation in so doing, and I am always immensely impressed by the convener’s robust handling of the issues that we discuss, especially when it comes to the issue of MSP remuneration.

Are there any changes to the Parliament’s procedures and practices that would help the committees to work more effectively? The challenge that arises from this afternoon’s discussion very much reminds me of the early days of the coalition UK Government, when it sought to embrace the challenge of House of Lords reform. One might have thought that, with a coalition rather than a majority Government, the land was best placed for some sort of collective agreement to emerge. However, in fact, each of the proposals, some of which were eminently sensible, found a different coalition of interests that was opposed to it, so nothing transpired. The challenge for the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee will be to take forward some of what I think will be a degree of agreed thinking in the chamber this afternoon and transform it into something that might lead to the Parliament being more effective.

When this Parliament was created, it joined the Parliaments of North Korea, Nicaragua, Mozambique, China and Cuba in being unicameral. The suggestion was that we did not need another chamber—of course, we do not, as we are one of the most over-governed countries in the world, and the last thing that we need is a second chamber. However, the promise was that our committee system would be the vanguard or bulwark of democratic accountability that would counteract inappropriate, badly drafted or simply wrong legislation. The question before us is, have we succeeded in doing that? The answer is that we have sometimes done so, but not always. That leads to the issues that are before us today.

I sympathise, for example, with the views that have been expressed about gender balance, and the fact that we should not have single-sex committees. I am the convener of such a committee myself now. It did not start that way, but we had a woman on the committee who was promoted to another committee, and there was not another woman available to put in her place. When another committee member left, we had two women from their party in rapid succession, after which that place was filled by a man. Then, another party changed its representative but declined to appoint a woman to the place. The way in which our committees are constructed makes it difficult to find a formula that will achieve mixed-sex committees without having a lot of red tape at the start of the session that requires parties not only to abide by d’Hondt but to nominate a member of a particular sex in order to achieve the continuity of gender balance.

I take the point that, if there is no gender balance in the Parliament, having a gender balance on committees would possibly lead to far more work falling on a handful of representatives—that would certainly have been the case with the Conservative Party in this session.

Of course, continuity is a difficult thing to achieve, partly because people are promoted within their party to take on more senior roles, which changes the face of their representation. My committee has faced problems with continuity, too. The minister referred to our report containing our final recommendations on deliberative democracy, which the Parliament will debate early in June, but I note that there are only two members of the committee who have been through the whole of that committee inquiry and taken part in every stage of the development of the recommendations.

The Conservative Party is the only party in the chamber that has never had a taste of government in the devolved era, so we do not have the same vested interests as the other parties do in maintaining certain safeguards. Our view is that we should do away with d’Hondt in the construction of committees. If that were done, the smaller parties would have greater representation across the various committees, and it would achieve the ambition of the committees being more independent of Government and being able to scrutinise with more authority. Our view is that that would give additional emphasis to the notion that the committees are, in fact, an essential part of holding the Government to account and thus of ensuring democratic accountability.

We are not altogether sure about whether there should be elected conveners. I was part of the previous Presiding Officer’s commission that first suggested electing and remunerating conveners. I am not sure about those suggestions, but I am sure that a number of conveners, particularly in the Conveners Group—which is a group that in some respects I think we could do without, because I am not quite sure what it achieves; I say that with the greatest respect to you, Deputy Presiding Officer, as the chair of it—are unsure about what their level of authority and responsibility is. Almost more important than conveners being elected or remunerated would be a clear understanding of what the authority of a committee convener is to act. I am aware that some feel able to act and others feel constrained by the committee as to what they can do. That probably interferes with the democratic accountability function.

We would also like to see the creation of a full-time post-legislative scrutiny committee. That is not an original idea, and we have gone round the houses on it. I hoped that deliberative democracy might offer an opportunity, but I do not think that the deliberative democracy model was particularly successful. We know that we are all supposed to do more post-legislative scrutiny, but we are unable to do so within the construction and constraints that exist. That is our principal view.

In relation to committee size, the smaller the committee is, the better. Five to seven members has worked better but, in our model of doing away with d’Hondt, there would probably be more opportunity for authority and for representation from other parties.

I hope that there is a general interest in this issue in Parliament. Normally in the Conservative Party, when you get the whip’s broadcast, if it says that you are speaking on Thursday afternoon and no division is expected, you rather feel that you have been consigned to the graveyard shift, because everybody else might have left. Notwithstanding the fact that we are here on a Thursday afternoon to discuss the issue, I hope that there is a genuine interest in it rather than a “you will be here to discuss it this afternoon” interest. I can see that everybody who has contributed to the debate so far wants to contribute and has genuine personal experience and ideas to contribute. I hope that we can translate those into something that committee conveners can take forward in a meaningful way so that we achieve the change that we would like to see.

As the last speaker from my party who will be speaking in favour of the bill, I say: what a day and what an afternoon. This has been the Parliament at its very best. At times such as this, the Parliament is much bigger than the sum of its parts. Members have been speaking without a party line, whip or pre-prepared script, so there have been some deeply moving and incredibly powerful contributions from all sides of the chamber.

I will not repeat all that has been said in the debate, because we have heard many testimonies and personal arguments, and many fundamental issues have been raised. Members who were able to be at the demonstration at lunch time had an opportunity to hear from some of those who are deeply affected by the issues that are raised in the bill, such as Dianne Risbridger, who is suffering from renal cancer and wants to have the opportunity to decide her end of life. She said that it is better to have the opportunity and not use it than to need it and then find that you do not have it.

Stephen Wisniewski talked about his mother’s extraordinarily painful death, which he and his brother had to progress through. Louise Shackleton talked about accompanying her husband to Dignitas in Switzerland. She made the point that he had to go far earlier than he needed to, and that if the opportunity for such a choice existed here, he would still be alive today, but he felt that he had to end his life at a point when he was still able to undertake that. We also heard from a woman whose husband was in the Royal Navy—a 50-something veteran who had inoperable brain cancer and who, on his third attempt at suicide, succeeded. Just think about what those people went through.

I pay tribute to Liam McArthur and the extraordinary work that he and generations of his teams have done. I also pay tribute to the committee’s work—Clare Haughey’s introduction of the committee’s consideration was deeply powerful.

I was in the Parliament for the two previous bills on this issue. I cannot look up to where Paul Sweeney and Maggie Chapman are sitting and not think of Margo MacDonald sitting in one or other of those two seats. She was hugely big-hearted and enormously compassionate, with an enormous personality. It is lovely that Peter Warren, who was her indefatigable parliamentary assistant, is up in the gallery and has been listening to the debate throughout our proceedings today.

I was also in the Parliament to support Patrick Harvie’s bill. It was probably the first and last time that I ever supported him in the chamber, which was probably a relief to him and me. I read through both of the stage 1 debates, and it strikes me that the world and the debate have moved on. The direction of travel has changed. I was the only Conservative who voted in favour of the previous bill on this issue. This time, although we may be in the minority, far more Conservatives are prepared to do so.

That is the direction of travel across the world and in public opinion, as shown by those who have made representations to us today. When I read the transcripts of the previous debates, I saw that the churches, the clinicians and all the medical practitioners were fundamentally against the principle of assisted dying. Now, they have moved to being neutral or taking a different view. Three of the four most recent leaders of my party believe that the legislation should be supported. The Parliament should have the courage to move forward, too.

I have been very engaged with the principle of deliberative democracy in this parliamentary session. One of the most interesting things to come from all those who have participated in the pilots, or whom I met elsewhere, is that they can accept a no if the issue is fully discussed, and they can accept a yes, even if it goes against what they believe, if the issue is fully discussed.

Therefore, I appeal to all members to allow us to have the fullest possible discussion of the issue, to take a breath for a moment and to look around the chamber that Enric Miralles built for us. Was it built to be a chamber where we closed down discussion, or was it built to be a chamber where we opened our hearts and our minds to the widest possible discussion of the most fundamental and difficult issues that we as a Parliament are ever asked to face?

I believe that we were not elected to be a nest of fearties. I accept that, if the bill progresses, it might end up with people concluding that they cannot support it, but surely it is our duty to all those out there who believe that there is an issue that we should explore more fundamentally that we do not, for the third time, after one debate, simply say, “This far and no further.” Let us take the issue and examine it fully.

I say to those who have talked about palliative care that I support the debate that Miles Briggs has begun. However, I note that, in both the previous debates—15 and 10 years ago—everybody said the same thing: that we need to do more in relation to palliative care. Here we are, still saying the same thing. That cannot be something that we hide behind.

Finally, in relation to one of the previous bills, a Church of Scotland minister turned to me and said, “Jackson, we all have a right to life, but we don’t have a duty to live.” The issue before us today is whether we believe that people should have the choice—in that final analysis, and in those final days with a terminal illness—as to whether they should be supported to make their own decision. Let us explore the issue further and give justification to those who have fought for it and to the architects of the bill by passing it at stage 1.

I do not think that there has been a discernible theme this afternoon; there have been a lot of very individual contributions.

I note the contributions by my very good friends and colleagues, Mr Stephen Kerr and Mr Ross. They were so well made that I will not repeat them; perhaps I will look to contribute in my own way.

I will start on the commentary from the First Minister about the Drumlanrig accord. I think that we in Scotland should be incredibly proud of it. Sheikh Razawi, my very good friend Edward Green, the First Minister and I and others were at Edinburgh city chambers last year for the candle-lighting ceremony. Against the odds, in many ways, it was decided to bring the faiths together to face the challenge that the international situation presented to the lives of all of us here at home. With the support of His Grace the Duke of Buccleuch, who was able to enlist the support of His Majesty the King, we have a very positive initiative being taken here, in Scotland, which is allowing those of so many different faiths and communities to exist in harmony here, even with the extraordinary pressures that are being applied by the events outside this country. We should celebrate the work that has been done, and we should be very proud of that Scottish initiative, which is contributing so well in the face of the international situation. [Applause.]

Over the Easter recess I turned 66 the day before the First Minister turned 61—so there is just five years between us. I know that, in another context, that would be regarded as a lifetime but, in the context of today’s debate, it is not really that long at all. I was reflecting, in advance of this debate, on what I thought were—from a long menu—the key things that had shaped the international situation over my lifetime. I thought of the visit of Nixon to China in 1972, the fall of the Shah of Iran in 1979, the fall of the Berlin wall in 1989 and the events in New York on 9/11. All of those events had profound consequences for the world in which we live today.

Over my lifetime, we have gone from being concerned, as a country, about the might of the Soviet Union and its empire, influence and threat, which meant that many of my generation thought that a war was at least possible in our lifetime, to the fall of the Soviet Union and the extent of state-sponsored terrorism or terrorism sponsored by nobody in particular—which nobody quite knew how to deal with, as it did not have a nation face. That receded slightly, but not so much that we can be in any way complacent. Then, the threat of the nation state emerged again, with the impact of Russia, as it now seeks to initiate military conflict on the continent of Europe, the emerging suggestion of a threat to Taiwan from China, the on-going expansion and ambition of North Korea, and states conflicting with one other in the middle east and Africa. Perhaps, for my grandchildren’s generation, the prospect of a war, if not probable, once again cannot be ruled out.

There is a need, as I think Governments have recognised in this international situation, to respond to that by trying to understand how best we can be prepared. That response comes in two ways, I think. One is to ensure that we invest in the defence of the country. That is the reactive way to ensure that we are prepared, should such a situation emerge. The other is the proactive way, which involves our commitment, tradition and history as a country that is involved in international trade, that wants to engage and that has been prepared to invest in international aid. We have not talked about that today, but I was very critical of my own Government at Westminster when it temporarily reduced the aid budget, and I said that I hoped that it could be restored, so I am disappointed at the response of the Labour Party to the proposed cut in international aid, because it is that aid that helps to ensure that we are investing in countries that might otherwise become part of the very international situation and problem that we are trying to stand against and prevent occurring.