 F珠 Stiart, efo'r eich cyf Deddyg byd winellure mwy believing in the Scottish Parliament y gall鼠 yn ei ddiwedd i'i dfi öl eich Cymru? Felly, dangosod fe ddefnydd As we stand in the debating chamber that encompassed part of his vision, ladies and gentlemen, presiding officer, esteemed judges, we are here to show how the creation of an appointed second chamber is the next step in the evolutionary path towards a journey, towards a fair and just society in Scotland. The words on the parliamentary mace in front of me are the very values that we should strive for in our decision making process. They are the values that we as citizens of Scotland should demand from our legislative body. They are wisdom, justice, compassion and integrity. Ladies and gentlemen, we are here today to show you why an appointed second chamber in our Scottish Parliament would continue that journey towards creating a fairer, more inclusive and just Scottish society, by legislators who are scrutinised by the public for the public. I will be sharing our vision of a second chamber with you and demonstrating why it will be more accountable, effective and how it is better than our current committee system. I will also explain how the chamber will be appointed and why it will be more cost-effective than our current committee system. My partner Julia will conclude by demonstrating how a second chamber will make Scotland more democratic and further save money by avoiding costly and embarrassing legislative errors. Now to my first point, wisdom. The second chamber will be specifically designed to scrutinise the work of the Government by amending or even delaying legislation passed by the main chamber. It will not exist to serve the governing party's agenda as the current committee system inadvertently does. It will be designed so that ordinary members of the public can ensure that legislation passed works for the people, not a political party. As Julia will elaborate further, a second chamber must be representative and to this end we will appoint and not elect its members. Our chamber will be appointed by a special commission system, like that of the House of Lords, and that, ladies and gentlemen, is where the similarities to that particular second chamber will end. The Appointments Commission will ask for eligible people to apply. These applicants must have shown excellence in their fields and not have been a member of a political party for the preceding five years. With regard to the expenses, our system will work similarly—no thank you—to the current jury system, which I am sure that you will agree is necessary and already scrutinises the work of the police and the judicial system. Our parliamentary electoral system is proportional. Our second chamber will be representative. Is this not wisdom? My second point is compassion. We are a nation of pioneers, innovators, educators and leaders in many, many fields. We should use, nay, embrace and harness that experience for our country's benefit. Why not use that expertise to challenge the legislators in a way that the flawed committee system never can? To meet the subsidence costs associated with this chamber, we will significantly reduce the role of the committee system. Donald Dure's proportional voting system was designed to ensure consensus politics by avoiding a majority government. The opposition will be no doubt quick to tell you that the majority government is the wish of the people, but this, ladies and gentlemen, only serves to highlight their lack of understanding of Scotland's political process. Currently, we have 16 committees and each has 7 to 11 members whose job it is to scrutinise proposed legislation before it enters the debate. Ladies and gentlemen, no offence to the SNP, but in 2011 each of those committees had an SNP majority and each of those majorities could put forward legislation that advances the SNP agenda. When the legislation arrives in the House and, surprise, surprise, the SNP majority government voted through, the SNP scrutinised the SNP's proposals to be further scrutinised by the chamber and ultimately voted through by an SNP Parliament. Ladies and gentlemen, let's put compassion first, the people before the party. Ladies and gentlemen, reducing or replacing this committee system with a second chamber to scrutinise legislation will provide a significant cost saving and saying that the most effective way to amend legislation is to send it back to the committee stage to begin the entire process again is completely ludicrous. Ladies and gentlemen, fairness is a concept at the heart of the Scottish people and we need to continue our and Mr Dure's evolutionary journey towards that goal. Thank you very much. Andrew Cymru. Can I ask Kate Quinn from St Andrew's Academy to respond as the first Opposition Speaker and Kate? You have six minutes. Good evening, ladies and gentlemen, fellow debaters and esteemed judges. My name is Kate Quinn and my team mate is Lucy Halliday. This evening, Lucy and I will be urging you to oppose the motion that the Scottish Parliament should have an appointed second chamber. Lucy will be talking about how the appointed second chamber isn't beneficial in general to Scotland and I will be talking about how an appointed second chamber will be undemocratic even with reform. Before I begin, I will point a rebuttal. You mentioned that your new appointed chamber would be more compassionate, however it has been proven that an appointed second chamber already pilffers money, so how would we trust it to be a tall compassionate? Where would you rather live? In a place of democracy where we choose to elect the leaders that we want to represent us, or a place where rich, selfish and unelected people have a say in how our country is run? In Westminster, the appointed second chamber is an institution that has rolled over the heads of British citizens for decades and even with reform it would not be as robust as the committee system that operates in the Scottish Parliament currently. Kate said that a new appointment would create a second chamber that pilffers money. We are reducing the committee system, which will reduce time that costs money to the tax payers. How can that not be better for the taxpayer? Even if the committee system, we pay a slight amount of money to the committee system but their time is so valuable to us in making laws that the House of Lords or the appointed second chamber does not have. Having an appointed second chamber would be completely undemocratic and extremely costly. Firstly, in the UK, the appointed second chamber—an example being the House of Lords—is regarded as being undemocratic. That is due to the fact that House of Lords members are not elected by the public. They do not directly represent the views of the public, so the challenge is the very foundations of democratic lawmaking. Currently in Scotland, it is only every elected representative that makes decisions regarding devolved matters. Therefore, it is apparent that the public's democratic voice is already largely included in Scotland, not just because they choose the people who want to make the right choices for them but also because of the function of committees, who take evidence directly from the public into consideration when making decisions. Additionally, an appointed second chamber would severely damage Scotland's economy. The House of Lords costs the UK approximately £93.1 million every year. Peers are paid over £100,000 each—a ridiculous amount of money for what they actually provide. In comparison, MSPs at the Scottish Parliament are paid approximately £37,000 less. Proving to us, our current system is significantly cheaper. An appointed second chamber would have to be paid forward by taxpayers, putting more financial strain on ordinary people. Furthermore, it is well publicised currently that House of Lords members spend too much money on completely unnecessary items for their benefit, not the taxpayer. For example, Baroness de Souza spent £4,000 on flowers for her office. This is not a sensible use of taxpayers' money, and I challenged the chamber to highlight a time when MSPs during committee have spent the precious pines of its citizens on such frivolous items. Furthermore, how much would an appointed second chamber actually help us? According to studies carried out by the BBC, half of House of Lords members simply come in and out of Parliament for a few minutes every day in order to claim their shocking link—no, thank you—high allowance of £300 a day. That clearly proves that House of Lords members are not even attempting to help the country improve. They simply care about the money that they make. Scotland should not have to deal with that. The House of Lords does not fulfil their role properly. If the current House of Lords are supposed to make laws, yet we have a large number not even bothering to help, then, of course, they will not be able to pass laws to help us. In almost all cases, the House of Lords will amend laws, however, they do not block bills drafted by the Commons, so they become law anyway. What is the point? Rather than holding Parliament to account, they are merely an informal rubber stamp. Why then would a second appointed chamber in Scotland be any different? Another issue is that the House of Lords members are supposed to provide expertise in certain topics. However, a shocking 84 per cent of House of Lords members are over 60 years of age. There is no doubt that a wealthy experience comes with age and experience, ladies and gentlemen. However, we need to have a range of ageing experience in order to properly hold Government to account. The House of Lords also does not represent the majority of citizens, meaning that they could not possibly amend laws that would improve the lives of Scottish people, as only the views of very limited groups would be carried forward. In conclusion, we simply have no need for an appointed second chamber in our Scottish Parliament. The current House of Lords system is shocking now to date. While the proposition has tried to persuade you that its solution would be more modern, the current second chamber consistently fails to perform its role properly, and the views of its members are likely to be unrepresentative of our people. The appointed second chamber would hemorrhage money from our country's economy. The House of Lords is completely undemocratic, which would take away the very foundations of our Government, and it is time to stop an appointed second chamber whomever is seeping in to our Scottish Parliament. Kate Forbes, can I now invite Julia Anderson, our second proposition speaker, to give us her views? Julia Anderson 6 minutes. Ladies, gentlemen, Presiding Officer, esteemed judges, we live in a world that is ever changing, a world where new medicines, technologies and even genders are continuously being created. This perpetual change has left us with a lot of uncertainty. Our current political climate, for example, has us uneasy to say the least. The electoral reform society has called our Scottish political system dangerously lopsided. We must counter this. We must improve scrutiny of legislation. We must enhance democracy. We must change for the better. We must implement an appointed second chamber. I would like to mention some rebuttal from Kate Forbes's speech. Kate Forbes very passionately told us of the flaws of the House of Lords, all of which we are more than happy to agree with. We are not standing here saying that we should implement a House of Lords in Scotland. No. We are saying that we should implement a represented appointed second chamber to help to improve and amend legislation. Andrew has explained our vision and the current failure of the committee system. I will go on to demonstrate how an appointed second chamber will strengthen democracy and prove to you that it is necessary by looking at recent legislative failures that could have been avoided with a second chamber. On to my substantive case. Justice. Simply put, an appointed second chamber is our only hope of reaching a democratic society. Our trust in politics has perhaps never been so fragile. The sheer power held by a select few to make decisions impacting the entire population without review from people knowledgeable on the subject is simply ludicrous. Yes, please. Professionalsiality. You stated and I quote, you wanted to strengthen democracy and enhance democracy. How can we possibly do this when individuals are not even being elected into the so-called appointed chamber? To the answer. The point of the appointed chamber is to review and scrutinise legislation that in itself is enhancing democracy. How can you not want the Parliament to pass fair legislation? Aristotle himself, a father of democracy, if you like, stated that it is evident from experience that those who have held the office of councillor have often been influenced by bribery and favouritism in dealing with public affairs. This is a reason why they should not be free from scrutiny of their conduct. In other words, scrutiny from a second chamber and not those already in Parliament is essential. If we were to know that all decisions made in Parliament were to be reassessed in a calm and controlled manner away from the angry glares of the opposition and the frantic pleas of your comrades, wouldn't we all have more confidence in the political system? Yes, please. Kate Quinn. The bells to already be reassessed, but they already are by being carefully looked at by our committees, so we already have a system in place. The system is that it is directly proportional to the Parliament, meaning that, as my partner said, the party tends to get its interest rather than the people. Knowing that a majority Government can make a rash decision become law without it first passing a politically neutral body of experts is simply ludicrous. I am not one for living in the past, but as we all know, if we do not learn from history, it often has a way of repeating itself. My second key argument is integrity. The Scottish Parliament is built upon integrity, yet we do not seem to be willing to reflect upon past mistakes. What might have happened had we had a second chamber in 2012. Perhaps the controversial offensive behaviour at football and threatening communications act, a law that restricted freedom of speech to the point where fans wearing a yes badge at a football match during the 2014 independence referendum had the right to be questioned by the police, might never have happened. It was a law with the noble purpose of trying to defeat sectarianism, but it was so woeful that it implemented that a leading sheriff actually called it mints. No thank you. That law was thankfully repealed in 2018, as not only had it failed to curtail sectarianism, but it actually damaged free speech in Scotland. Had we had a second chamber, at the very least there would have been deliberation and inquiry into the necessity and the effectiveness of the act. More appointed second chamber could have amended parts of this controversial bill. They could have delayed it, saying, hang on a minute, what about freedom of speech? They would have been the calm counter to the majority government that, as the Herald newspaper described, railroaded this piece of legislation. Ladies and gentlemen, an appointed second chamber has huge public support. The very first Presiding Officer, Lord Steel, published a detailed vision of how it would work. He described the current committee system as tyranny of the majority. Former First Minister, Jack McConnell, stated that there is a need for an additional check on the work of MSPs. The highly regarded electoral reform society argued that we need a broader range of voice in Parliament. It is clear that we must change. Andrew has told you our vision, a representative and neutral body, to scrutinise and check over legislation. I have proved to you that a second chamber would have avoided costly mistakes and weak legislation. Ladies and gentlemen, I would just like to leave you with a quote by the American politician Gaylord Nelson. The ultimate test of man's conscience may be his willingness to sacrifice something today for the future generations whose words of thanks will not be heard. Thank you very much, Julia. Can I now ask Lucy Halliday, our second Opposition Speaker, to speak? Lucy, you have six minutes. Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. Before I begin my speech, I would first like to address a few points that my Opposition has raised this evening. Firstly, you stated, and I quote, an appointed second chamber would create a fair and just society. This is completely ludicrous. The Scottish Parliament was formed on the notion of unifying all levels of society and representing them on equal playing fields. The concept of non-elected individuals making powerful decisions is abhorrent. As it totally, completely contradicts the very ideas that this Parliament is supposed to stand for, therefore proving that an additional second chamber would only prove to be malignant. Politics. The sovereignty that our society is subjugated by. Our familiarity with this controversial topic is rapidly increasing, yet many individuals in our communities remain oblivious to the true, profound threats and dangers that certain authority of individuals impose on us. I am sure that the vast majority of individuals here tonight are accustomed to the concept of voting and what that can achieve. However, do we really understand the notion surrounding the process of unelected lawmakers? Citizens with an immense amount of power that has been thrust upon them without a single public opinion. Creating an upper Parliament not voiced for by society, unappointed second chamber. Today, I will be highlighting and discussing three key aspects with you surrounding the true detrimental effects that the introduction of an additional prescribed area of Parliament has upon society. Economic echeloning, societal intimidation and propitious convocation. You would expect these to be three totally unrelated topics, however it is entirely contradictory to that. They are all bound together by the destructive string of parliamentary oppression, hedgermanising our society and we do not even realise it. Let us begin to uncover the truth surrounding this institutionalised facade. To your point about it not being elected, the very fact that they are not elected allows us to ensure that it is representative of Scottish society, ensuring a more fair and democratic Scotland. If someone has been appointed, they have not been voiced for by society, they have not been chosen by the people that this very Parliament is supposed to represent, so therefore that point is totally contradictory to the so-called fair and just society that you want to build. The initial reason why we should totally disencomber ourselves with this monstrous phenomenon is financial hierarchies and, more importantly, the beleagrament that this can promote. A prime example of a failing second commission chamber is, of course, the House of Lords. Regardless of its initial well-intentioned historical ideas, it has spiralled out of control. How can the individuals in our communities have confidence in the political decisions that are made when a large proportion of the contributors are mere expense of symbolism of the top few per cent? 1876, the age and time that Westminster Parliament was formed, was representative of a different era. Society had a contrasting mindset. How can we then, in 2019, still conform to the ideologies of the 19th century? All we talk about at the moment in our modern world is the navigation for the goal of equality and, quite rightly so, but we can never reach that long for destination if we are continuously prioritising social status. Quite simply, an appointed second chamber in the Scottish Parliament promotes stigmatisation due to advocating a conspicuous class system. The one's dominant class system is nearing its long-awaited end, and so too with its exit B, the concept of a second designated chamber. It's outdated, it's elitist, it's time for it to be voted out for good, yes. Andrew Spencer, Julia Halladay or Julia Anderson. You mentioned equality. We have shown or stated that our second chamber is going to be representative of Scotland, which is 51 per cent female, 49 per cent male. You said that that's death. Who's the Halladay? Thank you for those statistics. I'm very much aware of the population of gender in our country, but how can we ensure that the second chamber would be equal if it's not even been elected for? It's been chosen by the same people that chose the Lord for the House of Lords, the same people in power, the same type of people get to choose appointed people every time, therefore it's not going to be equal. No, thank you. Ultimately, the second reason why we should dismiss the notion of an unelected chamber within the Parliament of Scotland is the concept of societal intimidation. The introduction of an appointed supplementary chamber to the Scottish Parliament would further alienate people in their communities from politics and the bureaucratic verdicts that are made. This is the very affair that the architectural minds behind our Parliament wish to circumvent. No, thank you. Currently, the political individuals in the Scottish Parliament are elected by their local neighbours and peers. However, if a new chamber is to be initiated without public opinion influence, then citizens will not be able to hold an equal level of trust in the relationship with their unelected politicians. That would then produce an environment where the public voice is not being facilitated as it should be. The very notion of representation will be lost, as a barrier will be inevitably built, blockading any communication between individuals in their communities and the political citizens in a second chamber. In a time when we are trying to reduce apathy towards politics, an additional appointed chamber would simply perpetuate existing social inequalities. That is preposterous, that is executable. We must reject the mere idea of an additional preselect to chamber in Scotland. It is evident that it would be highly beneficial for us all if this appointed second Scottish chamber concept was disregarded for good. The malignant impact of poor political decisions is truly appalling, and it is about time that we see the end of it. The appointed second chamber concept creates segregation and would have deleterious ramifications. It is time for this misguided notion to be jettisoned permanently. Thank you very much, Lucy, and thank you to all our contributors. We are now going to open it up to the floor. Once again, what I am looking for is if you could put your hand up to catch my eye and then, if I call you to speak, if you can stand up and introduce yourself and make your point. It is entirely up to our teams whether they choose to respond or not. They will not be judged on the responses to the floor debate. However, a few responses are always helpful. Now, does anybody want to start off? Yes, there we are. Alexander Crichton, People's High School. My question is for the proposition. You talked about electing or appointing people to the second chamber. I was just making sure that how can we know even if they are not a member of a party, an official member, that they are not working with a party for a bribe or something, and that it can be affected which bills go through and which don't. They need to have shown proof that they are not joined or a member of a political party. They will have extensive checks into their background to make sure that they are not part of a political party. Thank you. My name is Roryn Clark from People's High School. This is for the proposition. Which tax sector would the funding come out of? Yes, in health education. There is a tax sector that the committee system comes from. It would come out of that purely because we are reducing the committee system, meaning that there would be more money in that. Maddie Raeberg, People's High School. The proposed chamber has been referred to as an investment on multiple occasions, but I would conjecture as to whether the proposition to have an estimation as to the period of time it would take for the investment to be returned, let alone to save the money that they are proposing would be saved. I don't remember mentioning investment, but was the question where the money would come? Can you repeat the question? Just what the main point of the question was. I'm wondering how long it's going to cost a lot of money, let's be real. How long is it going to take for that investment to be returned? I'd say at least two to three years in my opinion, purely because we would make more money off. I've got here that the named person scheme cost £10 million before it was implemented, so money from that would come to paying wages, would also get put back into the system to break even that investment. Yes, over here. Nathan Codges and Andrews Hansen Price School, how will you make sure that the representatives that are to be appointed, how will you make sure that they had no contact with any party representatives without excessive surveillance? Andrew Spence again. So your question was how would we check that they're not, there would be similar checks like they have in the police where they check the background and other countries do the same, they check backgrounds of people. I know that China definitely do, so it would be similar to that, it would have a group of people that were involved in checking, appointing, they would all be professionals or a spread of professionals in a way that would check off everything. There you go, a line up here, so I'll take... There, yes. Sorka MacGlone Bower High School, who would decide who appoints this second chamber? So senior civil servant members are considered to be politically neutral throughout their career, so we believe that they would appoint the chamber because they are deemed to be politically neutral. And the young man is just there. Yes, I have a question for the Opposition. It's claimed several times particularly by the first speaker that the House of Lords is an undemocratic institution, but that is the fundamental point of the House of Lords is that it is supposed to be undemocratic, the idea being to mix the older, more aristocratic, more anarchistic ways of the past and the more modern liberal democracies of today, the strengths of both the weaknesses of neither. So would you not agree that, A, the democracy isn't perfect and that, thus, it is not an argument in favour of it and, B, that just simply because the House of Lords is undemocratic does not mean that it is unable to fully scrutinise parliamentary legislature? I would say that it's actually not democratic and it's not able to fully scrutinise laws properly because our democracy is built on the fact that people are able to give their voices and opinions and the House of Lords are just appointed, they're not elected, that takes away the very foundations of our Scottish Parliament and, if we have people deciding laws for us that we haven't chosen to do that, then no, it's not democratic. Yes, you're with her. Emma Keithan, so this is to the Opposition. You've kind of talked heavily about committees and saying they're very effective however, since the last election, the SNP still dominate convenerships within this Parliament. Do you not think that it would be sensible to put in another institution to even check the committees just to add a further level of security or to make sure that the decisions are correct? I would say no because there's already multi-party representation in committees. We still have a broad range of parties that have backgrounds in those areas and are able to pass laws to help us. If we added an extra layer, not only would it add complication, but it wouldn't actually help us. I'm Charlie Franklin White from Peebles High School and I have a question for the proposition. I think that your first speaker said that ordinary people with excellence in the field should be appointed. Would they be volunteers or would they be asked by the Parliament or civil servants? A message would go out towards the expertise saying that there is an opportunity for this. They will have to apply and then the civil servants will then go through their applications very brutally and then pick their second chamber. My name is Thomas Halton from Peebles High School and this question is for the proposition. Why should we spend large amounts of money? We will have to come from something more important than this when we can just use the chamber that we are in right now. The chamber is not democratic. The chamber is democratic but the current committee system is also democratic but not representative of Scotland. I feel like money going into a second chamber that is representative would be more beneficial than having something that is proportional towards the main chamber. In your speech, you have set forward the idea of a second chamber as a panel of experts in a range of fields but many of the decisions that the Scottish Parliament makes are purely political. Why should some 80-year-old anthropology professor have the opportunity to veto a same-sex marriage act such as the one passed in 2015? Would not a second chamber in this sense make their politics because no one is truly apolitical, more important than mine? The Scottish Parliament is political but the decisions that it makes here in the Holy Road impact everyone in the Scottish population. Having a second chamber that is representative of that Scottish population allows the most democratic way for laws and legislation to be passed because that 80-year-old man may be affected by the law that the Scottish Parliament has passed. Surely having people representative of the Scottish society that is being affected by those laws is more democratic and more beneficial than referring it back to a committee system that, as my partner has previously said, is entirely political. I encourage you to address your mark through the front, just because the microphone only picks up through the front. A lot of hands go up here, which is great, just that you are in there. That is for the proposition. You are suggesting that we need the second chamber as it is quite necessary for the democratic process but would it not be a much more efficient and easier process to reform the committee system so that it is a lot more accountable instead of going for this quite arduous and bureaucratic process of creating the second chamber, as people would argue down in Westminster that the committee system is already better than the House of Lords in scrutinising legislation? Andrew Spence So you mentioned what was your main point of your question. Why can't we reform the committee system? A reformation in the committee system would mean that the same people with the same ideologies are in the same committees and we would have experts in their field to speak about or scrutinise legislation that involves them, meaning that it would be more effective than someone who does not know an awful lot about medicine, comparing that you have a consultant in the second chamber who says that no, that is not going to work in medicine and someone who does not know an awful lot about medicine. Does that answer your point? Alexander Crichton Alexander Crichton, Peebles High School. That is for the Opposition. I wanted to ask how do we know that the second chamber will be a waste of money and a waste of time? How do you know if we haven't tried it in this country? You've mentioned about different countries but this is Scotland, this must be different, every country must be different. How do we know that it will fail if we haven't even tried it temporarily? I think that if we did even try it temporarily there would not be much point. We've already seen that it is undemocratic. Even if we did reform it would still cost a large amount of money in order to bring about that amount of organisation in this country. If it clearly doesn't work in another country even with reform it's not going to be able to work in this country because the costs are still too much, it's still undemocratic and we'd still, as the proposition has said, look to appoint them and it's the fact that we don't want them to be appointed, we want them to be members of the public which committees already have, they already have members of the public, it's already a system that works. There are people who haven't asked questions here. The young woman is just there. I'm Victoria Halden, I'm from St Andrew's academy and this is for the proposition. You referred to the point about what would be different if we had a second chamber in the past but how do you know for certain that it would have prevented the problematic issues that occurred? Andrew Spence. A second chamber would have brought more scrutiny on by people who are experts in their field, meaning that they would have thought thoroughly about the problems which would effectively negate the opportunity and the reason of having ineffective legislation. I've got a question for the proposition on a point that they made earlier in a response that they gave to a question. You guys have spoken a lot about civil servants and how you'd use them to appoint people into the second chamber and you don't want them to have a party bias. However, would you class somebody having a party bias if they voted for them or if they believe in what they stand for? How would you put into place and make sure that, if there's not a party bias, if you get what I mean, how would you stop that? You need to be in more depth. We would have terms that would piggyback the terms of the MSP, which would negate bribery, but we would also have—sorry, what's your point about— Basically it was about the fact that people have the right to vote in Scotland and how would you see that as a party bias or if they have voted for them in the past? Would you see that as a certain party bias or how would you stop there being a party bias once they come into play or before they're even elected? The right to vote is a human right, so we can't take that as a party bias, so we would just have to make sure that they weren't a member of a political party previously and have made massive or even small donations to a political party. Benjamin Talis from Peoples High School. By the proposition saying that this current chamber has made mistakes in terms of money, would you not think that the second chamber would make just as many mistakes? Or will it be, as you said, as we will solve a lot of problems so altogether, can you really trust this second chamber? Andrews Bates. Yes, you can trust this second chamber. It would have more time to scrutinise legislation. The committee system currently has people from the main chamber who are involved in sitting in the main chamber who are involved in—well, there's constituency MSPs—they don't have the time or as much time to fully scrutinise the legislation put forward to them. Having a second chamber with no one who is involved in the main chamber will create more time for them to properly scrutinise the legislation put forward to them. Thank you very much. I'm afraid that that's our 15 minutes up. I thank you for the hands going up all over the chamber there. I also thank both teams for responding to every single question and point that was made. We're now going to move on to the summing up, however, and I'm going to ask Lucy Halliday to reply for the opposition. Lucy, you have three minutes. Good evening. I would now like to address the various points of class that Kate and I won this evening for which there can be no doubts. You began your argument by directing our attention to this great Parliament's founder, Donald Dure. You stated that Donald Dure wanted equality for all individuals in Scotland. That in itself is a valid point, but you went on to contradict your own very statement by demonstrating your love for an unelected chamber in Scotland. How can we possibly create a Parliament that displays equality for all individuals in Scotland when the appointed people will so obviously be the stereotypical same-old citizens who drag themselves away from their ivory towers just to make a powerful decision about our lives? Yet again, another obvious flaw in our opposition's arguments tonight. Another issue with my opposing team's statements was our apparent confusion with the concept of democracy. You stated, and I quote, that the current political system is directly proportional. Surely then this is exactly the type of Parliament that we want to lead our great country to have the voice of our nation influencing our future. Perhaps it is the naivety of my opposing team this evening that is causing them to display a blasie ignorance towards the motion. It may be that a simplistic proverb will assist with clarity. Quite simply, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. The Scottish Parliament's current structure is succeeding tremendously. It's efficient, it's suitable and it's most appropriate for the political environment that Scotland itself wants to create. A country where politics is not just an upper-class discussion. One with transparency, one with accountability, one where the voices of the public are heard just as loud as the rest. Scotland's political structure is excelling and we must continue to support it. Are we forgetting that this is 2019? Politics should be the most inclusive for all of society than it has ever been before. A point of chambers has been proven to only cause division and segregation. We shouldn't still live in a society where people fear the brokers of power. It's time for the people to use their voice and declare loudly that the Scottish Parliament is not a place for an appointed second chamber. Not now and definitely not ever. Thank you, Lucy Annacoll. Julia Anderson to reply for the proposition. Ladies and gentlemen, let me tell you a wee story. The company contracted to build our school was also the company in charge of approving the school for safe use. This situation is extremely similar to that of the Scottish Parliament, whereby the people creating the laws at the committee stage are also the ones in charge of approving them. All that must be said is that in 2015, our school almost fell down. Ladies and gentlemen, I would like to reflect upon some key areas of conflict in tonight's debate. Kate has passionately tried to tell you that an appointed second chamber would be at a huge cost to the Scottish people. Ladies and gentlemen, wouldn't you agree that the cost of poor legislation is higher? I think that we can all agree that meeting in a committee room in this fine building with only essential expenses would constitute, as Lord Steele said, minimal public expense. Lucy Annacoll most importantly reminded us of the fact that we have moved forward as a society and no longer live in a day of supreme classism. That, ladies and gentlemen, is exactly why a second chamber that is representative of our Scottish society and has people from all social backgrounds would allow the so wrongly previously misrepresented voice in Parliament. Throughout this debate, my partner Andrew has shared our vision for a representative Scottish Parliament and proven to us that the committee system is flawed in practice. I have demonstrated that an appointed second chamber will enhance democracy and could have prevented previously failed legislations. Ladies and gentlemen, as my partner and I have shown, a second chamber would better the values at the crux of our Scottish Parliament—wisdom, compassion, integrity and justice. Ladies and gentlemen, if you value these things, then we urge you to vote proposition. Thank you very much and thank you again to all the contributors and our floor debate speakers as well for an excellent debate. We are now going to take a short break. I am going to ask the judges to retire to consider their verdict. I will just remind the judges that you have until quarter to nine, 8.45, to reach a decision. Hope you can. Very difficult choice for you, I know. I do not envy you that task whatsoever. The rest of us are going to adjourn to have a reception, so we are going to enjoy ourselves. I am going to ask everybody else to go down to the garden lobby to have refreshments. We will all be back in the chamber by 8.50, 10 to 9. Thank you very much. Close the session.