 Ieith fart, and welcome, I'm Ken McIntosh. I'm the Presiding Officer here at the Scottish Parliament. It's my pleasure to welcome you all to Holyrood. To this evening's grand final of the Donald Dewar debating tournament, I want to start by paying a particular warm welcome to our four winning finalists, we have Balfroen High School over here, we have Bair We have St Andrew's academy, and we have St Margaret's School for Girls. Welcome and well done, all four of you already. I also want to welcome all your friends and family and your teachers in the gallery. I know that you have come a long way to show your support some distance. The Donald Dewar debating tournament is an annual event run by the Law Society of Scotland. I would like to welcome the representatives from the society this evening and their partner organisations, Hodder Gibson Publishers, the Glasgow Bar Association and TC Young, who have helped to make this event possible. The competition is, in fact, the biggest schools debating tournament in Scotland. This year, I believe, there were 128 teams from 94 schools the length and breadth of the country. There have been more than 30 first round heats, 16 second round heats and four semifinals. Now you, the four winning teams, have made it to the grand final. Congratulations to all of you. I look forward to listening to your speeches shortly. This is a particularly special year for the Scottish Parliament and for the Donald Dewar memorial debating competition, as we are both celebrating our 20th anniversary year. It is also a particularly significant year for the Law Society of Scotland who is celebrating its 70th year. Congratulations on your milestone. I hope that you will continue to deliver the great work and commitment to Scottish law that you have shown over the past 70 years. Thinking back to the opening of the Scottish Parliament in 1999, Donald Dewar, who was Scotland's first First Minister, said that the past is part of us but today there is a new voice in the land, the voice of a democratic Parliament, a voice to shape Scotland, a voice for the future and your voice. The voice of Scotland's young people is vitally important to us in shaping that future and we take every opportunity to engage with you and hopefully to listen to what you have to say. In that same speech in 1999, Donald Dewar said, I look forward to the days ahead when this chamber will sound with debate, argument and passion, when men and women from all over Scotland will meet to work together for a future built from the first principles of social justice. I am certain that if Donald had been looking down in this Parliament building here today in the heart of Scotland, he would be particularly delighted by this evening's proceedings. Young people from schools across Scotland, possibly future politicians among you presenting your arguments with passion. Once again, a warm welcome to all of you and I take this opportunity to wish you the very best of luck this evening. Before we start, I will outline the format of the debate this evening, which I think that for the young people you will be very familiar with, but for everyone else who is not. I am going to call on the first proposition speaker to speak. They will have six minutes. I will then call on the first opposition speaker to speak, and they will also have six minutes. This is repeated for the second proposition speaker and the second opposition speaker before we open the debate to the floor. During those four speeches, I will announce when your first minute is up, and that will indicate that interventions are now permitted. I will also let you know when you have entered your last minute and at this point no interventions will be taken. When your six minutes are up, I will ask you to wind up, and if you continue further, I will ask you again to wind up after 30 seconds. Please be aware that there are clocks all around the chamber, and I would ask our debaters to observe those time limits. The debate will also open up to the floor for a further 15 minutes, and I would encourage—in fact, I do not think that I have properly welcomed all the other schools that are here this evening as well. Can I just do that now? I think that we have eight other schools here from Scotland, and I would like to thank you for taking part in coming along this evening. In fact, if you contribute at this stage in the open-floor debate, I have been told that judges will award a £50 book voucher to the two best floor contributions, so I hope that that will encourage you—I do not think that you need any encouragement—to raise your hand and make a contribution from the floor. We will then hear reply speeches from the Opposition and Proposition, and those will last no more than three minutes, and there will be no interventions. Again, I will let you know when you have entered your last minute. I would like to remind the teams that it is your choice whether or not to respond to any of the points raised in the floor debate, and your performance will not be judged on the floor debate. The motion for debate this evening is, this House believes that the Scottish Parliament should have an appointed second chamber. It is a very topical one for me and my colleagues. Ash Denham, one of my MSP colleagues, is here as well, so we will be taking particular interest in the arguments that you put. Our judges this evening include Ash, who is a minister within the Scottish Government, a minister for community safety, Victoria Lane, senior solicitor at Brody's, Andrew McPake, debate coach at Craigmont High School and a three-time winner of this very tournament, our presiding judge, Sarah McWhirter, a senior associate at Slater and Gordon, Jim Bald, solicitor at TC Young and also member of the Executive Committee of the Glasgow Bar Association and Jennifer Gallacher, partner at Lindsay's. I thank all our judges for agreeing to give up your time this evening and taking part. I would now like to ask Balforn High School and St Andrew's academy to leave the debating chamber through that door at the back. We will commence the first debate. Can I just say, by the way, that you are incredibly well behaved? The chamber is never as quiet as this ever, so, yes, Ash, take a note on this. Thank you very much. If we are ready to start, I am going to call on Sarah Mackay to open the debate as the first propositions speaker and Sarah, you have six minutes. Ladies and gentlemen, presiding officer, it has been nearly 20 years since the opening of the Scottish Parliament. Nearly 20 years since MSPs pledged allegiance to the people of Scotland. Nearly 20 years since the very namesake of the competition became First Minister. That signified a change not just for Scottish politics but for Scotland itself. Tonight, we are debating a possible next step for Scotland, a next step that will make Scotland even stronger than it is now. Tonight, I will be opening the debate and the case for side proposition by defining the motion and introducing the points of what a second chamber would do and why we need one and how an appointed second chamber would be more beneficial than an elected one. My partner, Ms McClure, will go on to show you how a second chamber could be more cost-effective than the opposition may lead you to believe and how a second chamber would produce higher quality legislation. We define the Scottish Parliament as the law-making body in Scotland for devolved matters and the body that currently scrutinises the work of the Scottish Government. Our definition for a second chamber would be in line with the views that former First Minister Jack McConnell expressed in the press a few weeks ago. A second chamber would take the form of a consultative assembly. It would not have a legislative function but instead provide more accountability and give councils a larger say. We define appointed as not an old school style network but instead we wish to appoint those representatives of today's Scotland with leaders in the business and voluntary sector as well as representatives from each local authority. We feel that it is more than adequate for the assembly to sit part-time, meetings consisting of discussions on big issues such as Scottish budget and key legislation. That brings us on to my first point, why we, and I mean everyone in this room, need a second chamber in the Scottish Parliament. We all hear every day in the news the many headlines about the current state of modern politics. Just this week in The Guardian, ministers have been accused of shocking complacency. We have the chance to make a change by creating the second chamber. If we do not, we will be joining those ministers in shocking complacency. A second chamber can provide an additional check on MSPs. The extra level of scrutiny can deal with what Lord McConnell put as a gap in the terms of accountability and engagement 20 years on from the creation of the Scottish Parliament. I would now like to delve deeper into who would be members of the second chamber by moving on to my second point. As I am sure most of you have noticed, tonight's motion specifies that a second chamber would be appointed rather than elected, just like the House of Lords south of the border. However, ladies and gentlemen, the appointment of Scotland's second chamber could not be more different to that of the House of Lords, filled with the elite of society. Instead, we wish for a second chamber, filled with today's Scotland, a place where local authorities can be empowered without the superiority that plagues the House of Lords. Lord McConnell emphasised that councils have been disempowered for over 20 years, and that there is a need to revitalise and re-energise their voice. An appointed second chamber will allow that, and in turn, it will create a stronger, more united Scotland. Matthew Burton. Michael Dunliff. Presiding Officer, although the makers' suggestion is to be representative of today's Scotland, you take no account into bias, so they will have political leanings, political allegiances. How can you ensure that we won't have bias in our second chamber from today's Scotland? Presiding Officer, we see the speaker's point. We are committed to ensuring that there is no bias in the second chamber. We wish that everyone is represented in the second chamber. If that formula is followed, there would be no need for an election to decide members. While elections confer clear political legitimacy, they also give campaign advantages to party participants and may entail party control of the resulting chamber instead. Of course, low-virtuit turnout may also be an issue. Point of information from Matthew Burton. Yes, please. If the second chamber is to represent councils that are elected and will follow what the people have elected, how can it be truly appointed and independent? Presiding Officer, what we see is that by representing people from the local authorities, we are ensuring that the chamber would be representative. As I said by former Labour minister Janet Anderson, an appointed house could well end up more representative of the electorate than an elected one. Ladies and gentlemen, Presiding Officer, the namesake of this competition that Donald Jure once said, there shall be a Scottish Parliament. Through long years, those words were first a hope, then a belief, then a promise. Now, they are a reality. Tonight's debate shows a potential future for Scottish Parliament, a future that represents a Parliament more just, democratic and fair. The political landscape in 2019 is one much different than in 1999 when the Scottish Parliament first opened, and we cannot allow a second chamber, something that has the potential to improve our political system, not be created just because the current system has worked in the past. Change requires a leap into the unknown, but without change, we would never have had progression. Without change, we would never have had devolution, and without change, we would never have had the Scottish Parliament. So, ladies and gentlemen, I ask you to take that leap and embrace change. I beg you to propose that motion. Thank you very much, Sarah. Before I call, I apologise to Michael Dunn. I've only got a few duties, and one is to get everybody's names right. I've fallen down my first duty. I now call on Matthew Burton to respond as the first Opposition Speaker. Matthew, you also have six minutes. Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. My name is Matthew Burton, and I'm proud to be open in the case this evening for side opposition. First of all, I'd like to say that we would accept side proposition's definition of the motion. Tonight, I'll be discussing why a Scottish Parliament, why a second chamber, has no purpose in the Scottish Parliament and is really simply just added bureaucracy, plus my partner Michael will be discussing the danger to democracy posed by an appointed second chamber. First, however, I'd like to begin with some rebuttal. So, the proposition suggested that this appointed second chamber would be representative of councils. However, as I raised in my POI, councils themselves are elected, so if it's representative of elected representatives, surely it's really just indirectly elected, rather than appointed at all. I feel they've strayed away from the motion a bit on that account. They also mentioned that this second chamber would be more democratic. However, if we are not electing it, how can it possibly be more democratic? Surely an appointed democratic chamber, by hampering the will of the people who are elected democratically elected to the chamber, is less democratic? Yes, please. Does the Speaker not agree that we could have public nominations to who would be appointed in this chamber, and therefore the public would have a say? Well, the proposition never raised that in its switch. Just because you have public nominate doesn't mean that the public gets the final say on who is in the chamber. It still fails to be truly democratic. They also fail to go into detail on how we would make this truly representative. Will we have a mix of professions, races, religions and political allegiances? That's incredibly difficult to achieve, especially when people's political views change month by month in opinion polls. How can we really make this second chamber truly representative? I would like to move on to my substantive case. I would like to base my speech on going through every possible reason that we could think of for having a Scottish Parliament. Every possible function could fulfil and explain one by one how the Scottish Parliament already fulfills those functions and how a second chamber is unnecessary. The four possible functions that we came up with are to prevent the tyranny of a majority government, to keep a government within its legislative competence, to allow in-depth scrutiny of legislation and to prevent an expert opinion on issues. First of all, they need to prevent a majority government from falling into tyranny. In a functioned democracy, we need a system to prevent a government from implementing extreme policy without building a consensus behind it. In Scotland, the system that we have to achieve is the additional member system for electing members of the Scottish Parliament. AMS essentially means that it is very hard for a party to form a majority in government. Does the Speaker not realise that, in 2011, SNP gained public majority? I am fully aware that SNP forms a majority. I will deal with that in literally about 30 seconds. It is very hard to form a majority. When there is no majority, parties need to co-operate and form consensus. That essentially acts as a break on any one party implementing extreme policy without first building consensus. As the proposition has been highlighted, it has happened before that the SNP has achieved a majority. However, to do that, the SNP needed something like 45 per cent of the public vote. It already had to build a consensus behind its policies before it got into majority government. We still force parties to build a consensus around its policies before they are able to implement them. AMS prevents a government from implementing extreme policy without the consent of the people, so we do not see that as a role for a second chamber in the Scottish Parliament. The second possible role of a second chamber that I would like to discuss is keeping a Government within its legislative competence. What do I mean by that? Legislative competence is the areas that a Government can legislate over without overreaching and, inappropriately, legislating over human rights or the constitution, for example. That is commonly performed by second chambers such as the German Bungesraff or the French Senate, but in Scotland we have a system in which the appropriate minister, the Presiding Officer, the Attorney General, Lord Advocate and Advocate General all had to declare a bill to be within legislative competence before it can pass into law. Any concerns that they have about legislative competence can be referred to the UK Supreme Court. With the strength of those checks around legislative competence already in place, we do not see it necessary to have a second chamber to fulfil that role. Does the Speaker not agree that, with a lack of time and resources, sometimes legislation cannot be fully checked? Actually, within the statutes that the Scottish Parliament follows, there is a set time that all those officers of the law are allowed to have to review the legislation in its four weeks, which provides them with ample time to review it and check that there is no legislative overreach. One third potential area that a second chamber could fulfil is additional scrutiny on government. That was mentioned by the proposition. This is the primary function of the house of lords where they have committees that can look into legislation in debt. However, in Scotland, we have very strong committees in our elected chamber, so there is no need for a second chamber to fulfil that role. Our committees are stronger because MSPs are selected for committees on the basis of experience. Committees are provided with more information, more time and a more prominent role to increase their influence on the process of legislation passing through Parliament. That negates the need for a second chamber to provide added scrutiny. Finally, a second chamber can provide expert opinion. However, no reasonably sized second chamber could provide enough expert opinion to cover the breadth and depth of academic fields that are becoming increasingly specialised, so we do not think that a second chamber would be able to fulfil that role. I have outlined why the Scottish Parliament already has the necessary mechanism to keep government in check and is frankly pointless. We are throwing away vast amounts of money for nothing in return, and I do not think that we need any expert opinion to see that that is a motion that we must regret. I now invite Jessica McClure, the second proposition speaker to give us her views. Jessica, you have six minutes. Donald Dewar once said when speaking about the Scottish Parliament, this is a moment anchored in our history. Let there be another moment as we introduce a second chamber. Presiding Officer, ladies and gentlemen, I beg you to propose the motion that the Scottish Parliament should have an appointed second chamber. My partner, Ms Mackay, has previously discussed the points of how a second chamber would allow for a more democratic Parliament and the issue of appointed versus elected. I will be going on to discuss how, in the long run, it will be more cost-effective and how it would improve the quality of legislation. Before I continue, however, I would like to engage in some rebuttal. Mr Burton suggested that we already have a high enough level of scrutiny towards legislation. However, it was found by the Westminster Foundation for Parliament that the Scottish Parliament finds it hard to prioritise which legislations warrant post-legitive scrutiny, as due to lack of time and resources. Mr Burton also talked about how bureaucracy and how it presents tyranny in majority. However, as I have already highlighted, there has already been a majority in Parliament in 2011, so why are we not changing? No, thank you. On to my first point of how, in the long run, it will work out as more cost-effective. By having a second chamber, we will not be putting in that much more money than we already are, but what we are getting out of it will be so much better and therefore more cost-effective. As side proposition, I would like to reiterate the point raised by my partner, Ms Mackay, that it would increase democracy and we need this. We pose the question whether a stronger, better, more united Scotland is worth the extra money. Yes, yes, it is. A second chamber will be more beneficial in the long run, regardless of money. However, the cost may not be as high as side opposition may originally think. We have already discussed the difference between appointed and elected, and since the process is appointed rather than elected, there will be no need to spend additional money on elections. The Scottish budget towards elections was £0.2 million just last year, and we feel that that is already high enough. Therefore, by having appointed officials instead of elected ones, we will not be wasting any more money. We may save compared to having additional elected officials, but we are arguing that we do not need any second chamber in the first place. Jezz McClure. We strongly do not agree with that. We strongly do not agree with that comment, as I will later discuss how we need a second chamber to improve the quality of our legislation. People have to use legislation in real life, and we feel that it is of the utmost importance. The second chamber theoretically would not even need a whole new committee room, as it has this impressive chamber right here that it could use. What we are emphasising to you on side proposition is that we are not creating a house of lords full of prestige and hierarchy that comes with a hefty price tag. Instead, we are asking for a body of people independent of political party who represent each one of us, the people of Scotland. The introduction of a second chamber wouldn't carry the burden of lots of zeros, so why aren't we already making the change? My second point is how we will improve the quality of legislation. This time would allow for reflection of legislation, this time will allow for discussion, and this time will allow for the quality to be improved. The main concern that side opposition will have is that the reviewing of legislation will take time, and that will mean that bills may be passed slower. Ladies and gentlemen, this isn't just some school rule, no nail polish allowed. These laws have actual big real-life consequences such as fines or even prison sentences. If we want a stronger Scotland, then we must allow these bills to be properly reviewed and revised. Matthew Burton. We have already outlined on-site opposition how we already provide an incredible level of scrutiny on our legislation. The proposition's case for us requiring more scrutiny is based off a report that they have, frankly, misunderstood. Post-legislative scrutiny is the reform of laws that are already passed, not laws as they passed through the Scottish Parliament. Jessica McClure, you have one minute. Presiding Officer, we feel that this would act as an even bigger check. As Lord McConnell, our former First Minister said, it would act as an official check on the work of Holyrood, and we need this to conclude. We can make Parliament better by becoming a bicameral system. As my partner Ms Mackay mentioned, introducing a second chamber will increase democracy. She also mentioned how an appointed officials in a second chamber is much better than that of elected. I have also highlighted the points that by having a second chamber in the long run will be more cost-effective, because in the end we will get better, more improved legislation, therefore making our Government better. Presiding Chairman, ladies and gentlemen, we have a second chance to make improvements, so give us a second, a second chamber. I beg you to propose the motion. Thank you very much, Jessica McClure, and I now call on Michael Dunn, second Opposition Speaker to speak, and you have six minutes, Michael. Thank you Presiding Officer. Grieving ladies and gentlemen, I'd just like to start by saying what a pleasure it is to be speaking to you today in the debating chamber of the Scottish Parliament, the only necessary chamber in Scottish politics. You have just heard my partner explain to you why a second chamber in the Scottish Parliament is just not necessary, it does not serve a true purpose. I will continue on our case by explaining why an appointed second chamber would not only be unnecessary, but it would in fact be undemocratic, which is opposing the view that proposition would like you to believe. But first, however, I would like to engage in some much-needed rebuttal, so, just to clear something up here, side proposition have mentioned that, we already had a majority in the Scottish Parliament, we had one in 2011, but they are overlooking the point that we are trying to make. The point is that for a Government to get an overall majority in the Scottish Parliament, it's incredibly difficult to do so, the SNP needed 45.7 per cent of the vote, they needed to unite the public in order to get that majority, so they needed that overwhelming support just to get into that majority position, it's not to do with the fact that it can't get one, it's just that it's very difficult to do so. We heard side proposition, they mentioned so many times about how it's going to be more cost-effective and that it's not going to cost more money. The building that we're in is £400 million, it costs £400 million of taxpayers' money, £414 to be precise, of taxpayers' money to start up the Scottish Parliament, and then they said that we don't need elections so that's where the money's going to be saved, and they even went on to provide a place of meeting for this second chamber, and they said that it was going to meet right here, we've already got one perfectly good chamber, but let me ask you this, this chamber sits full-time, this chamber is going to be sitting here for a predominant length of time, and then they started saying that they're going to have plenty more time to scrutinise this, but if they can't sit here where they're meant to meet because the priority chamber is sitting here, how do they have that time to carry on scrutinising if they can't sit where they're meant to be meeting, so it's obviously going to cost us a huge amount of money to get them a suitable meeting place. We can have our chamber sit part-time, and that is only to discuss big issues. That's the very point that you're trying to make, so you're trying to say that if they sit part-time, they're still going to have plenty of time, so if they sit part-time, are those people who are then appointed from places of business in the public sector and areas like that, have they just expected to leave their job part-time to come and get unpaid work here in a chamber? No, thank you. In a chamber that meets part-time to only discuss the important things, who decides what the important things is? Is that up to the second chamber? They've not explained anything in detail, so on to my substantive case that the very nature of an appointed chamber is dangerous to our democracy. In the UK Parliament, the Prime Minister is able to manipulate the scrutiny and the decision-making process by politically stacking a chamber. They've suggested that it would come from areas of the public and it would be suggested by the public, but if it's only recommendations, who has this final say? It would be the Government that has the final say. They can handpick specific individuals, like minded political views to their own, to stack the chamber so that when bills arrive for scrutiny, they aren't properly scrutinised. No, thank you. Examples could be seen in Prime Minister Maef when she was trying to put through her withdrawal deal. She said that she would appoint as many Tory ministers as necessary to the House of Lords in order for it to pass unobstructed. Jacob Rees-Mogg actually even claimed, why don't we throw in 200 just so that it doesn't pass with any form of problems at all? Yes, okay. Jessica McLear. Does the Speaker not realise that the House of Lords has actually had 2,270 changes to bills, and that is why we need a second chamber? We understand the point that you are trying to make, but, as my partner at Outline, we have committee stages, we have advocate generals, we have scrutiny in place that isn't in place down there. The House of Lords is their main form of scrutiny for the Government. We have alternative methods that are working perfectly well. It's a process not dissimilar to the presidential appointments of Supreme Court judges in the USA. They create this carefully selected, like-minded, specific individual that's the perfect fit for them. There's nothing stopping a Government from appointing suggested individuals that have SNP support. They have the support that is going to allow their bills to pass unobstructed. Another flaw in the committee system is that too often it's used as this form of reward or this personal loyalty or service. It's similar to the last point. It's to do with cronism really down south. It's support for your friends or individuals that are being inducted into a second chamber for their good service to themselves perfectly or to a political party and not to the country as a nation. Just last month, we had Lord Brookman. He actually was claimed just shy of £50,000 in expenses, but he never made any contribution. How can we ensure that if they're sitting part-time, they're coming in here, they're doing the specific work that we need? The propositions motion just doesn't address that. It doesn't address that the people are obligated to arrive here in the chamber. Cost aside, ladies and gentlemen, we've spoken a lot about it. Do the proposition genuinely think that those who design the Parliament simply forgot to add in a second chamber, that it just slipped their mind one day when they were planning out how to make this? If that's the case, ladies and gentlemen, I hate to say it, but you're sitting in a £400 million mistake. The Parliament was purposely designed not to be by camel. We're not just here by mistake, and, as my partner Matthew has outlined, the success of the Scottish Committee's assistance and the success of the scrutiny that we have in place is an alternative to a second chamber. That isn't here to be done as well as we have the motions in place. We're in a Parliament of compromise, of collaboration, and in chambers and in committees is designed to give us the best possible outcome for our nation. In conclusion, my partner Matthew has explained why the role is already fully fulfilled and it's not necessary. As I said in my own speech, the chamber only adds bureaucracy, it only adds expense to our decision-making process. Any move away from democracy must be avoided at all costs, and it's for that reason that we stand here, ladies and gentlemen, to oppose the motion. Thank you. Thank you very much, Michael. Thank you to all the speakers, and thank you for taking interventions. Again, my colleagues and I can learn from your example. I'm now going to open the debate to the floor. The floor debate will last 15 minutes, so, if you wish to speak in this debate, just raise your hand. If I select you, if you could stand up and tell the chamber your name and which school you're from before you raise your point. Please try and make your contributions relatively short. The teams can then choose to respond to the point or not, as they so wish. It will not be part of the judging system on your final mark. Before we start that off, I was using the moment to look around the chamber and I've spotted a few of my colleagues in the chamber here. I can see George Adam at the back here, Tom Mason here, and Liam Kerr up in the gallery. I know that Liam Kerr's daughter's school is St Andrew's, I believe, so... Oasis Margaret. Oh, don't let that judge's daughter influence you, though. So, I'm now going to open this to the floor, so just raise your hands if you wish to make a contribution on the motion that this Parliament should have a second chamber. There were, yes. If you want to stand up and tell us who you are and what school you're from. I'm Madeline Raver and I'm from Peoples High School. So, this is for the proposition. Based upon today's financial climate, I question the validity and logic behind spending an unnecessary amount of money on a second chamber when you have aforementioned that the other already works. When we could be spending the money in a wiser, more useful way, by taking money for a second, frivolous chamber, one takes away the finance for other, more pressing matters. Thank you very much. I should also declare an interest. Peoples High School is my mother's high school, so I've just got a few favourites to hear as well. Any other points from the floor? Thank you, yes. If you stand up, hopefully the light will come on in your microphone. There we are. Tell us who you are and where you're from. Fari Kinahan, Peoples High School, for the proposition. The first proposition mentioned during their speech, we are committed to an unbiased chamber and it was reiterated several times during the second proposition's speech. I'd like to ask who we are. I find this viewpoint incredibly naive. I, for one, believe that many of the MSPs who sit in this chamber would prefer someone who had passed their legislation without question. Thank you. Oh yes, I'd like to respond. Jessica McClure. We're not saying that they would have the powers to pass legislation. We would give them, we're not having a second house of lords, but instead proposing literally just to review legislation just to make sure that they're of the highest quality. Thank you, Jessica. Yes, anyone there? No, sorry, I'll come to you. I'm not pointing very well here. My name is Harry Mackle. I'm from St Angeline-Bright and my question is also for the proposition. The hypothetical second chamber on which people from local authorities are appointed, who would be appointing the members of the second chamber? Would it be an independent Government body or whatever? I think so. Katie Muerson Anders academy. How will the second chamber be held accountable if they don't have to answer to elect it up? Good points, often for the proposition here. Nobody being entered the opposition, yes. Alexander Crichton. I'm representing People's High School. This is also for the proposition. I was wondering if you said where the money came from and how are you so sure that the taxes will not be raised just to pay for the second chamber that you would wish to put in. Money always comes up in this Parliament a lot. Yes, anyone there? I'm Harrison Carroll from St Andrews at Brighthouse. This is a question for the opposition. What necessarily is wrong with having the second chamber not be representative of the will of the people? We have an elected house for that. Surely the second chamber's role as scrutinising would be much better served by having them be picked as expects of industry rather than the tyranny of the majority. They would just pick famous people as opposed to the people who are most qualified for the position. Thank you very much. Some good points are coming up from the floor here. Yes. Michael, do you want to respond to that point? Yes. Michael Dunn. Just for clarification, were you suggesting that we would be picking famous people as opposed to industry experts or the other way round just before I reply? No, I was just implying the idea that it doesn't necessarily have to be up to the people like this. The people aren't always necessarily the best choice for the thing. Surely it would be someone who understands the industry best that would be the best choice. For one, I do agree that industry experts are important. Committees currently can call industry experts as and when they are required in order to bring in that kind of expertise. A committee of that size to fill it with experts from industry from all walks of life, you are talking at a huge size of committee. With regard to the point of how there would be expertise in that, it allows for a bit more scrutiny on the Government. Although you are correct, the point that we raised in one of the POIs was about bias and that anyone who has the interest in politics will have political leanings one way or the other, so it depends on how those expertise are pointed into and who allows them in, would be basing on the bias side of things. Thank you very much, Michael. Any other comments from the floor here? Yes. I'm Laura Clarkham from Peebles High School. This is for the proposition. I would like to ask whether there is evidence to suggest the urgency of a second chamber. Thank you. This is for the Opposition. You say that politicians are appointed— Could you give your name in a new school first? I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Benjamin Gardner of Balforn High School. This is for the Opposition. You say that politicians are appointed on a basis of experience to committees. Who is to say that politicians have the minimum experience required? Yes. So, politicians are appointed to committees by the parliamentary bureau, which has the Presiding Officer and a selection of MSPs from different parties, and they assess what MSPs should do on which committees, based on what they know about that MP's previous experience in the area of that committee. Thank you, Matthew. I'm saying that those are good points that have been raised from the floor here. I would like to contribute. I'll take the young lady here and then the general manager. I'm Hallie Murray, and I'm representing Peebles High School. This is for their proposition. Where will you find independent and willing residents of Scotland to help to achieve the completion of the second chamber? Thank you. Thank you. I'm the young man just behind, yes. Hi, I'm Fraser Gemmell from Peebles High School, and this is for the Opposition. You said how the Scottish Parliament was not made with the second chamber, but do you not agree that back in those days the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish people did not think that the Scottish Parliament would not be such a big part of our lives as it is today? Yes. Michael Dunn to respond. I actually do think that in 1999 it was when the Parliament first opened. I think that the people fully expected it for the devolved powers to become quite a substantial part of our lives. Because of that, I would say that the creator of Parliament that's a little more modern than the 300-year-old one that we have down in Westminster, we have Scottish Parliament TV, it allows you to witness what goes on in committee rooms in the chambers, so that you can scrutinise it yourself by watching it from even just the comfort of your own home. Very good. Yes, come on there. Callum Leeson from Inverkeith. That is for the Opposition. The Opposition argued that committees can scrutinise the work of the Scottish Government. However, in 2014, on the Public Audit Committee, the SNP effectively stopped any criticisms to the police manager final report, so effectively they are not checking or scrutinising the work of the Scottish Government. Thank you very much. Any other points from the floor here? Yes. Sorka McLoan from Bellwary High School is for the Proposition. In America, Donald Trump nominated Mr Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court, which would really divide the country and decrease the public's trust in the Government. Can you justify risking that type of situation here when the public already distrusts the Government so much? Thank you. Yes, just there. I am Hamish Temple from Peebles High School. If we were to have to build a second chamber, how much money would you be willing to invest in the project and its proposition? What price democracy? Any more questions here from the floor? Yes. My name is Jenna and I am also from Inverkeithing High School. I have a question for the proposition. Surely there must be a cost involved to make sure that people in the second chamber are representative of the people of Scotland, if so, how much of a cost do you think that will make up? Thank you very much. My name is David Fox from St Andrews and Brides High School. That is a question for the Opposition. You said that the second chamber was not forgotten about when the Parliament was created, but do you not agree that the Parliament was created for changing ideals? And what makes this any different from a changing ideals for the second chamber? Thank you. Yes. I can hand Peebles High School for the proposition. You stated several times that this is about embracing the change that would come with creating a second chamber, but in creating, effectively, a House of Lords are we not reverting instead of changing? Very good. Any more questions from the floor here? Yes. Peebles High School, I am assuming that we are going to take this money out of tax because I cannot think of another logical way to get said money, and I wonder which sector you would like to take that out of, education, health, service, etc. Thank you. I think that there is another hand drawn up over here. The other back, yes. Harry Mackle of St Andrews and Brides. Now this question will go to either proposition or opposition. I am just wondering, would you believe that the best way to sell this debate would be to hand this question over to the Scottish people via a referendum of whether or not they would accept a second chamber to the Scottish Parliament? Another referendum, that's a good one. First, we've mentioned tonight. Yes, young man there. I'm Fraser Gemmell from Peebles High School, and this is for the proposition. How would you know that people who would be elected in any form would be willing to represent where they come from or live? Thank you. There are a lot of very good questions and points here, which I meant as Michael Dunne. I know that that point was addressed to the proposition, but just what you were talking about there, with how it's representative, where people live and things like that, just to remind everyone that the additional member system has two votes employed, where you actually also get to vote for a regional MSP, which allows for a bit more geographical representation in Scotland as well. For the sake of the primary chamber, there is actually a pretty fair representation geographically. Fin Thomson, Balfour and High School, if you are proposing that the second chamber is elected by local councils, which are already elected, surely those local elections are going to become elections for the second chamber disregarding local issues that are important to communities? I'm Rory Clark from Peebles High School. This is for the proposition once again. Are there any more studies or reports that suggest that we would gain from a second chamber? Harrison Carroll from St Ardison and St Vredd. That could go to either side really, but I suppose it's more strongly towards the opposition. Is it not true that the House of Lords has done many great beneficial things for the country? It's been demonised quite a lot through the debate quite frequently it has, but is it not true that it does serve its job incredibly well as a legislative body, despite any so-called cronyism? It's still incredibly effective at its job. Thank you, As. Yes, we have believed that the House of Lords is effective in England, however, as has been the bulk of our argument, the Scottish Parliament has functions, which means that a House of Lords is not necessary in Scotland. We already have the functions, which will fill those roles effectively and we don't need a second chamber to fill them. Our time is almost up. Any last contribution before we conclude the floor debate? Yes. Maddie Raver, Cewbill's high school again. I wonder why this is so prevalent right now when there are so many things going on in today's political climate. Could this not be postponed 20 years to where there's less prevalent matters going on or is this something that needs to be dealt with right now? Jess McClure. There's always going to be more prevalent matters going on and by having a second house we would take pressure off of Parliament so that legislation is being passed to the highest quality to ensure that bills are being tackled to their full list. I think that it's on one last hand, yes. Nathan Cowley, St Andrew's handsome bride. You said that you want the representatives to represent the people but you also said that you do not want them to be elected but instead appointed. Isn't the whole point of elections to make sure that the representatives represent the people and not the Government who actually appoints them? Thank you for your mention on that note. I think that we are going to conclude the floor debate and we're going to move now to the wind-up of speeches and I'm going to begin by calling Matthew Burton to reply on behalf of the Opposition. Matthew, you have three minutes. Thank you once again, ladies and gentlemen. In my reply speech, I'd like to cover some of the main clash points that there's been this debate and the four main clash points that I've identified are the whole issue of cost and time and practicalities. Who sits in this chamber? Can it be representative of the people of Scotland? Does the Scottish Parliament already provide appropriate scrutiny and would a second chamber actually provide any more? Can a second chamber that's appointed actually be democratic? To start with the issue of cost and time. Side proposition said that the cost of elections is £0.2 million a year and by having it appointed we'd save compared to an elected second chamber. Yes, we might save £0.2 million a year compared to an elected second chamber, however we are arguing for no second chamber at all. Just to let me tell you that the Scottish, well actually as my partner mentioned earlier, the cost of building the Scottish Parliament was £400 million and the yearly running costs are £72 million. So yes we might save £0.2 million by having it appointed rather than elected but we're still spending tens of millions a year on this second chamber. In fact we are losing money by having a second chamber, not saving it. They also had a bit of a contradiction in their argument over time. They were saying that to save money we could have the chamber sit part-time and sort of squeeze it in around our current chamber in the Scottish Parliament. However they also argued that this chamber would have far more time than the current chamber to scrutinise legislation. How can it sit in here part-time less frequently than the current chamber and yet still have more time to scrutinise all the same pieces of legislation? It's a bit of a contradiction and in my mind it doesn't really stand up. The second point of clash I'd like to discuss is who sits in this chamber and can it be representative. Again the proposition gave us a bit of a contradiction because on one hand they said it should be selected by local councils and on the other hand they said it should be totally representative of the people of Scotland. If it's chosen by local councils they will choose representatives who represent their own interests and their own political interests of the party in charge. That can't really also be representative and we find that a contradiction as well as the fact that a representative chamber would be incredibly hard to implement and a council selected chamber isn't necessary since we already have appropriate regional representation by the fact that our MSPs represent either constituencies or larger regions. One of the main points of clash has been scrutiny and do we have enough of it? They base the idea that we don't have enough scrutiny on a report about post-legislative scrutiny. In the Scottish Parliament the scrutiny that goes on is pre-legislative scrutiny. Post-legislative scrutiny is what the law commission does and then refers to the Parliament. We feel that the sort of misunderstood that point, that report and that actually in the main type of scrutiny that the Scottish Parliament conducts there is more than ample scrutiny provided by the committee system as we have outlined repeatedly in our arguments. The final point of clash that I would like to discuss is, can it be democratic? That one is pretty simple, ladies and gentlemen. If we appoint a chamber and it has power over an elected chamber, we are diluting the will of the people and hence it is totally undemocratic to have an appointed second chamber. Thank you. Thank you very much, Matthew. Now can I ask Senator Mackay to reply for the proposition? Presiding Officer, ladies and gentlemen, David Hume, an illustrious philosopher from this very city once said that all free Governments must consist of two councils, a lesser and a greater, or in other words of a Senate and a people. The people would want wisdom without the Senate, the Senate without the people would want honesty. The propositions are here tonight to show you that in order to have a free Government in Scotland we must have a second chamber. This evening I have identified three main points of clash, whether a second chamber would cost too much, whether the work of the current system makes a second chamber redundant and whether an appointed chamber would be better than an elected one. Mr Burton has said that there is no need to throw away fast amounts of money on a second chamber, but, ladies and gentlemen, as the proposition has explained to you time and time again, the benefits that a second chamber can bring to Scotland hugely outweigh the cost. Presiding Officer, we have expressed that a second chamber need not cost an arm and a leg in order to bring the positives of improved legislation and further empowering councils to the body of Scotland. Fairer legislation, stronger councils and more united Scotland. A further point of clash that I have identified is that a committee-based legislature in parliament makes the need for a second chamber redundant. Mr Burton has said that the current system scrutinises legislation enough and that the committee-based legislature in place was fine. However, ladies and gentlemen, it is not quite clear that the current system is not working as well as it needs to. Critics have said that it is not robust. Even high-ranking figures, such as former presiding officers Trisha Marwick and Lord Steele, have called for a second chamber in conjunction with the current system. We need to allow room for improvement, not be stuck in the past with just an all-right system. The final point of clash that I have identified was whether an appointed chamber would be more beneficial than an elected chamber. We have heard the Opposition claim that it is the public's right to have a say on who would sit in this chamber and it would be less democratic to have an appointed chamber. Ladies and gentlemen, the proposition does not dispute that the public would need to have a say in this chamber and would welcome nominations from the public on would-be members. However, that does not cover the fact that elections are not perfect. Low voter turnout can result in a non-representative chamber. Only just over 50 per cent of those eligible voted in the 2016 Scottish Parliament elections. We can have an equally representative, if not more, second chamber by appointing a widespread spread of our people here in Scotland. In conclusion, we are proposing a fairer Scotland, a freer Scotland and a flourishing Scotland. Why say no? Stand with us to not just make a stronger Parliament but a stronger Scotland. I beg you to propose that motion. Thank you very much. I thank all our contributors this evening. That was an excellent debate. Not only did we get some contributions to take interventions and respond to them, you have done so within time, which never happens in this Parliament either. We are going to take a short comfort break now. When we return, if I could ask both the markets and beers to go to the roads behind them to allow Barthfell and St Andrews to come to the front, if we can come back. We are ready to start promptly at 20 past 7. Thank you very much indeed. Thank you to all of you.