Chamber and committees

The most popular option that was chosen during the recent latte levy consultation was “No thanks”. I recognise that some climate change policies will not always be popular, but can the minister tell the chamber what the estimated reduction in emissions would be as a result of the proposed latte levy?

I concur with that answer. The consequences of not meeting net zero would drive farmers out of business, destroy the rural economy and put our food security at risk. Does the minister agree that it is common sense to meet the target of achieving net zero by 2045 and that it would be utter madness and an act of national self-harm not to attempt to do so?

In light of the recent “Ocean Witness” report from Open Seas, how can the Scottish Government accelerate the delivery of the required management measures in order to protect the marine environment and safeguard sustainable fisheries for the future?

As a member of the Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee, I thank all those who participated in the committee’s review of the embedding of deliberative democracy in the work of the Scottish Parliament. Particular thanks go to the members of the public who took part in the Parliament’s people’s panels and to the clerks who supported the committee in its work and in the production of the report.

It would be worth Parliament’s while to reflect closely on the wider issues that are alluded to throughout the report, notably the issues of the erosion of public trust and a feeling of disenfranchisement in our political processes and institutions.

The first point of the report notes that, when this Parliament was established, one of the founding principles that the consultative steering group on the Scottish Parliament set out was that

“the Scottish Parliament should be accessible, open, responsive, and develop procedures which make possible a participative approach to the development, consideration and scrutiny of policy and legislation”.

The second point of the report highlights the warning from the 2017 commission on parliamentary reform, which stated that

“Failing to engage meaningfully with citizens can lead to dissatisfaction with democracy and a lack of trust in the decision takers.”

The stark reality is that, in Scotland, public trust in our politicians is at an all-time low. The “Life in the UK 2024 Scotland” report gave Scotland a democratic wellbeing score of just 39 out of 100. The findings included the fact that 63 per cent of people disagreed that they could influence decisions that affected Scotland. I wonder what percentage that would be for members of the Scottish Parliament.

Some of the recommendations were taken on board but, to be honest, they were largely niche and limited in their nature. Ultimately, in order to build trust, we need to go far further, far faster.

I will come on to the culture that is developing, which is quite concerning for our society and our politics. Members need only look at some of the language that is used routinely in press releases to share—I hope—my fear about the direction of travel.

It is easy to blame external factors for the dissatisfaction. However, that is too convenient, because it ignores our responsibility as elected representatives to promote and protect the public’s trust in our democracy.

After 14 years in government, the UK Conservative Party—for a number of reasons—lost the trust and support of the electorate and was handed a resounding defeat in last year’s general election. The electorate handed power to the UK Labour Party but, in less than a year, it has had what can only be described as one of the most spectacular falls from grace in recent political history, with the polls now showing that the public’s confidence in it has evaporated.

For the Scottish National Party’s part, its mission to separate the UK has led to deep rifts in Scottish society. At the same time, confidence in Holyrood has been undermined by a series of policy failures in areas such as our education system, net zero targets, our health service and antisocial behaviour—the list goes on. I could easily be accused of political bias in calling out the failings of the Scottish Government, but the crux of the matter is that the public are aware of those issues—they see them every day in their communities and in schools and hospitals.

The public also see their elected leaders of all colours playing the spin game and being completely unwilling to put their hands up and take responsibility for any of what has happened. Instead, they tell the public that they have got it all wrong, that things are not really that bad or that the problems that exist are actually someone else’s fault. Again, the public can see right through that, and they are fed up with the spin, the false promises, the half-truths, the gaslighting and the shifting of blame.

Where does that leave us? If the doorstep activists from all parties are to be believed, Scottish politics may be facing a seismic event this Thursday. Whether that is a small tremor or a political earthquake, the ramifications will be felt by all the major political parties in Scotland and beyond. When that happens, the political class may be better served by a period of self-reflection in which it asks itself why that has happened and searches for the answers internally. However, a moment of self-reflection may mean that it will need to address some hard truths.

To go back to the point of this debate, deliberative democracy is characterised in the report as

“an approach to democratic participation that allows members of the public to engage in inclusive, respectful, reasoned and informed discussion and debate on significant issues.”

According to the report,

“Decision making is informed by this deliberation.”

This parliamentary session, the focus has been on utilising people’s panels that have been focused on policies on climate change and drug deaths. I welcome that approach and would like it to be expanded, which I hope that the Parliament will agree to. In addition, I would welcome the expansion of people’s panels to involvement in budget allocation processes. Such panels are already used at Mearns Castle high school for classroom resources and by Angus Council in the design of play parks, with children being the key decision makers in both examples.

However, I sound a note of caution on people’s panels. Even when the Government accepts recommendations, that does not mean that the desired outcome will be met, as we have seen with the climate change people’s panel.

That brings me back to the central point of trust. If we are serious about embedding deliberative democracy throughout the Scottish Parliament, Scotland’s elected representatives should reflect carefully on the state of politics right now. We must start listening to the concerns of the electorate, engaging them in a meaningful way and, most important, being honest with them. If we want members of the public to engage in inclusive, respectful debate, maybe politicians should try a bit harder to do the same.

I wonder whether the advantage of the people’s panels is that their format allows people, particularly with lived experience, to contribute. That format might offer a better way of getting those views into our democratic structures than a formal committee session, in which the witnesses might be sitting at the edge of a very large table. The panels are an interesting portal for the gaining and gleaning of lived experience.

Will the member give way?

Has any consideration been given to how benefits will be spread to communities that might not, for example, be located next to a large wind farm, but might still be in need of investment? Indeed, consumers are paying for some of the transmission from wind farms.

I recognise that there are opportunities, but the community benefits of Whitelee, the largest onshore wind farm in Europe, have generally been around East Renfrewshire, when just down the road is Castlemilk, which is an area that really requires those benefits. However, I take the member’s general point.

We have all heard from constituents who are struggling with their energy bills. Some of the causes, such as global geopolitics and supply chain shocks, are outwith our control, although circular economy policies can mitigate those somewhat. Concerns that net zero might push bills higher are real, and we need to listen to and act on them. We need to be honest and say that bills will come down with net zero, but only in the long term. If we do not do that, we will allow the climate sceptics to hijack those concerns and turn them into a broader backlash against net zero.

No one who is serious about climate action wants to impoverish people or place unsustainable demands on households. On the contrary, we want climate action to deliver thriving, wealthy and sustainable communities. Community ownership of energy is an opportunity to help to deliver that, but only if we move beyond promises and deliver the funding and frameworks to make it happen.