 My name is Ken Macintosh. I'm the Presiding Officer and I'd like to welcome you all to Holyrood this evening to the debating chamber at this or Scottish Parliament. I hope that it's familiar to you. I'm sure that many of you will have been here before. I think that it's actually become a very familiar place for virtually everybody in Scotland these days, which is quite remarkable when you think that it's 20 years ago exactly this month that the first elections to our new Scottish Parliament took place. I'm joined by a group of fellow 99ers, as we're known. I still remember that sense of excitement, the optimism, the anticipation that greeted us, the sense that we're going to offer a new kind of politics. I hope that that's what we're going to explore tonight. We're going to talk about the principles on which the Parliament was founded, openness and accessibility, accountability, the sharing of power and the promotion of equal opportunities. It's not just for our panel, but for you to perhaps give us your thoughts and views and questions about have we lived up to those principles, are we still practising them and what can we do to do better for the people of Scotland. I believe that we're joined. I think that it's over here. Some of the early members of the consultative searing group—I can see it's here. Esther, Joyce and Andrew could be here as well, but they're not. There are some members here as well. We've got a distinguished panel to answer to us. We're also doing this presentation in conjunction with The Times of Scotland. I can see Kenny Farkerson. I was looking for you, Kenny, around the audience. This is a festival of politics event, but we're doing it in partnership with The Times of Scotland. If I can, Kenny, I'll bring you in to ask a couple of questions later in the evening. I'm delighted to introduce our very distinguished panel this evening. Starting on my right, Annabel Goldie, now Baroness Goldie, who is now a Government whip in the House of Lords, but for us was a Conservative MSP from 1999 to 2011 and a leader of the Conservative Party. I've taken five years off your service, Annabel. A leader of the Conservative Party in that time. Robin Harper, who not just led the Green Party—it was an MSP here from 1999 to 2011—was the first ever Green Parliamentarian that elected in British history. I claim to fame, which I'm sure you're very proud of. And, on Robin's immediate left, George Lyon, who not only was an MSP colleague, a Liberal Democrat representing Argyll and Bute and part of that first coalition government as a finance minister and as a business manager—that's one of the people whose job it is—is to organise the MSPs and get them to vote the right way or otherwise, but also went on to serve in Europe as an MEP, just in case the B word comes up tonight, to throw the questions. Patricia Marwick, who served for the SNP from 1999 to 2016, also served as a business manager and on the corporate body, which is the body that governs the running of the building and the support network that we need to keep the place functioning, but perhaps is still best and most affectionate as our first and only woman ever elected as president and officer here in the Scottish Parliament. And last but not least, Henry McLeish, who, as well as being—and still is very proud to this day of being one of Scotland's first ministers—a claim that I think we're all very envious of Henry. But more than that, you were an MP in Westminster and as an MP in Westminster was a devolution minister, so you were actually responsible for putting through the act that brought about devolution, for which I'm sure you're also extremely proud. So, ladies and gentlemen, our panel this evening. Now, I talked earlier about the principles. One of the principles is the sharing of power, often translated into what's called participative democracy, not just representative but participative. That means that you have to participate, so think of questions. But before we do, I'm going to ask our guests, if they can, just for a few short introductory remarks, just to kick things off, just some thoughts on their own experience as MSPs and perhaps either looking back on the reflections on their time here in the Scottish Parliament, or perhaps even looking forward at some of the challenges. And I'm going to start in reverse order, if I can, with you, Henry. Okay. Well, thanks very much, Presiding Officer, and thanks very much to all of you for coming this evening. I have very fond memories of the whole devolution issue, and I'm very fortunate to be involved from 1997 to 1999. I'm conscious, and my back is to you, so I'm going to turn around with it. From 1997 to 1999, and these were really three years that changed the face of Scottish politics for the good and forever, and so that's a point that I think is worth making. I suppose the other issue for me is quite nostalgic, because whilst I spent 30 years in elected politics, this is the first time I've sat in the well of the new Scottish Parliament, and I feel very privileged, and I feel very pleased as a result of that. My early recollections are that when we, 20 years ago, when the Parliament was established, it was a great sense of pride, great sense of occasion, great sense of history, great sense of excitement, enthusiasm, whatever good emotion you wanted to describe, it was there. And I do believe that when we've got 20 years, it is a celebration. There will those who will rightly, will be able to criticise, rightly be able to say it could have done this, it could have done that, but all in all when you consider that Westminster has been on that site, not necessarily in parliamentary terms, but in administrative terms for nearly a thousand years, we've only been here for 20 years. It's the start, and I think that all goes well for the future. And the final part I'd make in the opening remarks is that Parliaments are essentially legislatures, and that's what they're there to do. This Parliament has become the voice of Scotland, has become a platform for Scotland, has been a focus for issues, and whatever the political party, this is where we debate them. The ladies and gentlemen, the key issue for me is the fact that since 1999, we've passed something like 280 pieces of legislation. Now people who are against legislation might frown at that, but when we were in Westminster, we had one piece, one and a half pieces, two pieces per year. Scottish interests were not being dealt with. Scottish interests had to wait in a very long line, but once they had the Parliament, we've been able to tackle some of the big issues, whether it be land reform, whether it be health, whether it be education, and in that sense, I think all everyone from every party has made a huge contribution to that. And as I said, this is merely the start, and I think that the best days of the Parliament are certainly still ahead. Tricia, I saw you in the paper the other day talking very similar terms about how the Parliament has become embedded in Scotland's public life. I think that that's really important to say. I tell the story in the run-up to the Scottish Parliament elections, where I was working for Shelter of Scotland at the time, and I was an SNP candidate, and I was invited to a panel session with the Scottish Council for voluntary organisations, SCVO. On that panel, I can remember quite vividly Sarah Boyack was there, but I can't remember who else. One of the questions that we were posed was, what difference is a Scottish Parliament going to make? I told the story of when I worked for Shelter that whenever we wanted to see the MPs, we had to go down to Westminster. There was a cross-party group on housing, and we had to all go trot down to Westminster to see them maybe for about half an hour. There was about one debate a year on housing at Westminster, Scottish housing. That was what there was. I was asked what difference it would make. The first thing is that we can make legislation in our own Scottish Parliament, but the second and the most important thing of all is that half the population of Scotland is within an hour's journey of the Scottish Parliament. Even if we wanted to, the new MSPs will never be able to escape. That is absolutely true. When you see the engagement of the people of Scotland within their Parliament, not just the visitors to the Parliament, but the people who take part in the cross-party groups, the people who come in the organisations who come in here for receptions and to meet with MSPs, it is completely alien to what existed before 1999. I think that the greatest achievement of the Parliament is that it is now the centre of public life in Scotland. It has got the ability to do so many things. Have we met the brief of openness, accountability, equality and sharing of power? We probably have not got it right yet, but I think that what is important is the journey that we have travelled. I think that there was such great hope, such expectation of the Scottish Parliament when it was set up in the first place. I think that in many ways we were set up to fail because we could not, at the beginning, meet those expectations. We were being held to such a high standard that it was almost impossible. That is not to say that we were not culpable in some of it, the MSPs. We made some mistakes at the beginning, but it seemed to me that there was no forgiveness for those mistakes. It was a new institution. We were really lucky that we had the steering group who came forward with proposed standing orders, the way that the Parliament should operate. They did a great job under Henry's chairmanship, and I can see a few people here. The difference was that that was a hypothetical Parliament. Until such times as we got in here to see how it worked and what we needed, it was a bit difficult. However, I look back on the first 20 years of the Scottish Parliament, and there have been huge achievements, free personal care for the elderly, tuition fees, taking away the tolls on the forts and the table bridges, which is very close to my heart. If you look at the Scotland that we had in 1999 and look at the Scotland that we have now, it is a different place. There are two examples of that. The convulsions that we had over section 28 in the Parliament, right in the early days, when it seemed that everybody was up in arms about it and a lot of Scotland was not happy. One of the proudest moments of my tenure as Presiding Officer was presiding in the chamber when this Parliament passed the Equal Marriage Act, and it meant so much not only to the people who were beneficiaries of that, but it also gave a message about how far Scotland has travelled. I do not think that Scotland would have travelled that far and that fast if it had not been for the Scottish Parliament. George, you have had the benefit now of two parliamentary chambers, in fact one on which this is almost modelled, the European Hemicycle. How do we compare as an institution? Well, I think that my experience of the first of all of the Scottish Parliament, I came from outside politics, I was not involved at all, I was a farmer, I brought up Nyland and Bute, I had all the challenges of living in a rural area trying to run a business and trying to create employment, and then I became involved in lobbying through the National Farmers Union. The biggest difference the setting up of the Parliament did for rural Scotland, I think, is that it brought us much closer to the decision-making, as Tricia said earlier on. You had to travel to London if you were involved in trying to get decisions about how your future political direction for your industry would go, as either London or Brussels. The setting up of the Parliament brought the islands closer to the seat of power, because it is not quite an hour's drive right enough for where I live to hear, but compared to going to London it is still much more accessible. In terms of comparisons with other parliaments, the biggest difference between the two is that here, everything that you do, you are held accountable by the media for what you say or what you do, and therefore party discipline here is probably now as tough as it was at Westminster, and is rigid. I am not sure that people actually thought that that would happen, given that the type of Parliament that we are trying to create where compromise and working together was going to be the way that we actually did business rather than the confrontational approach. The difference between that and Europe, of course, is that you can see what the earth you like. It does not matter what you say, nobody reports it, because it is an invisible institution where a lot of big decisions are taking effect ordinary people's lives, but it is not accountable in any way that they perform because the media does not engage in reporting what is going on. It is quite a different institution to work in. There is one big commonality between the two. In this Parliament, many of the speeches were always laced with only when we had the powers to be able to sort this problem. The exact same happens in the European Parliament. They want more power as well, but they want to take it from national to this international organisation that was set up, whereas in the Scottish Parliament it was the reverse. No matter where you go and which institution you are in, there is a common thread about only if we want more power and there is this notion that that actually is a way to solve problem rather than sometimes being an excuse for actually using the powers that you have to try and resolve the issue. That is the biggest difference and the biggest similarities between the two institutions. That is good. You have set off, I am sure, a train of thought amongst half the audience already here. Robin, I introduced to you the first ever Green Parliamentarian, but now the Greens are doing pretty well. Did you feel like a pioneer at the time? Was the Scottish Parliament good for the Green Party and for you personally? Yes, it was a bit top heavy because we had very, I don't think we had any Green councillors at that time. We now have Green councillors were really embedded in Edinburgh and Glasgow and the balance has been, well, there was no balance to restore. We now have a balance, if you like, of being a representation at the local as well as the parliamentary level. I think what really struck me, you were talking about the hemicycle with George, it was a much more closed circle and so you could have eye-to-eye contact with almost everybody in the chamber in there and I do remember, I think we were also, everybody was so happy to be there. We were all wandering around with fixed smiles on our faces sort of saying, God, how has this really happened? And that did pervade most of the first four years of the Parliament. We made friendships at that time and I can see one or two old mates from those times as well. I was able to run a parliamentary show in the Edinburgh Festival with representatives of every party doing their bit. I can see Jamie at the back there, sang a great song for us. The reception is afterwards Jamie. Good guitarist. You went into committees and you would probably found it very difficult to tell which party people were members of in committee discussions because we took those discussions very seriously and discussed things absolutely on their merits. And the amount of influence that was allowed, maybe these will come out later as the process of this evening goes on, but as Donald Durr said in his wonderful opening speech, devolution is not an event, it's a process and it has continued. There's been more devolution since. I would like to see it go much further down. Our community councils for instance are a joke. It's in the same way that school councils are a joke. If you don't give people money to spend, they've got no decisions to take or make anyway and that's what happens in far too many school councils and far too many community councils have a little bit of money, just a pickle pickle of money. There could be more devolution there and we'd have a stronger democracy all round because people would be involved at their very local levels in decision making. I could go on and on about that, but there is one thing, I'd like to finish on one thing to give you an idea of how open the parliament was. Obviously as the design for the parliament unrolled, as the sole representative of the Greens, I wanted to make sure that it was as environmentally friendly as I could possibly make it. Now, one of the things I continue to do is work with the Scottish Ecological Design Association. At that time, I managed to get four architects together with me. We sat in front of the design people, the people from, oh, the contractors, the run jam and the builders, and we had two hours with them, quizzing them and that was, there was just me, you know, back bench and just one person in one party, but that was the amount of access that you could get to working with people where you needed to ask a few questions. Thanks. Thanks very much, Robin. I'm just conscious that one of the aspects of the parliament is that the budget has grown and it's now well over £30 billion. I'm trying to work out what a pickle pickle is in the £30 billion. Annabelle, it's strange to think of it now, but in 1999 the Conservatives were at a low and, in many ways, the Scottish Parliament and the voting system were actually very good for the Conservative party. Would that be fair to see? Yes. I think that low is perhaps charitable. Sinking through the floor seemed to be my recollection of the times. I was looking Joyce at you and I remember being in a debate and Joyce McMillan ate lumps out of me during this debate and I thought, golly, is this politics? Am I really wise to be standing for this parliament? Robin, I may not have been in your party, but I do remember coming here green was how I felt absolute rookie. I thought, this is tough. It's exciting. I think we all felt we were part of history, part of history in the making. It was an extraordinary sensation, a great privilege to feel that. We also had a sense of burden, we had a sense of responsibility, as I say. I always remember going into asking someone where the lady's loo was and I went in and he were all these ladies of different political backgrounds. What were we interested in? I like your lipstick. Where did you get that foundation? Immediately there was a bond of amity. That was one of the features of the Scottish Parliament that, in a sense, although part of political differences were there and party politics was important in the democratic function of the parliament, there was a sense that we were a political community of Scotland and very, very proud to be that. Very proud to be that. But I remember coming and looking at that desk there and I think of how I would have to stand up at First Minister's questions. I had to try and ask the questions and be regularly pulped by one adversary or another. But there was also a huge sense of, and I think you referred to it, Robin, this immediacy, that there were very important decision makers just sitting along from uniform of the Scottish Government and yet we were close to them in terms of access, we were close to them in terms of discussion and one of the features that struck me forcibly about the Scottish Parliament was the accessibility. The accessibility for the public, for people who wanted to access politics, whether they came as visitors, to visit MSPs, whether they came as witnesses to committees, whether they came as spectators to watch the proceedings as they unfolded. It was, and I believe still is, one of the most accessible parliaments that you will find, and I think that that is hugely to its credit. I thank you for those opening remarks. That phone going off has just reminded me not just to switch my own off, but to get out, because this programme has been broadcast, actually, and we are also taking questions on social media, so I will be taking the odd remark here. We are now open to questions, so anybody that wants to catch my eye, just put your hand up. I have noticed quite a few former colleagues and they will look at that. Richard Simpson is straight in with his hand up there. Anybody that wants to catch my eye, please do so. I will take Richard Simpson and then I will take the gentleman at the back there. Two quick questions. In the first Parliament, we had a part of the European system. We had reporters, and when I came back in 2007, having been out for four years, the reporter system had disappeared. Now, I wonder if the panellists felt why that happened and whether it is a good thing or a bad thing. My second question is, I think that the media did give the Parliament a real kicking in the first term. I just wonder if the panellists felt that that was the case. And whether they felt that it sort of settled down over the time that they were in. A couple of good questions. I will turn to you simply because, I am not sure if any of us know why the reporters were less used, but I know that, as Presiding Officer, you introduced a series of reforms, including some to committees that are still to be implemented and which are still in discussion. Do you have any comments to make about the role of committees in the way that they worked and the way that they still work? The committee system here was set up to be a hybrid of the standing committees and the select committees at Westminster. I think that the jury is out about whether that has been the most effective way of doing it. I do not think so. I think that there should be a system where the committees can be set up specifically for one piece of legislation, as they do in Westminster. I have not been convinced that the committee system has been as effective as it could have been, but, in the particular point about the reporter system, I actually do not know the answer to that, Richard. It was up to the individual committees to decide whether they wanted reporters or not, and I cannot think of any sort of edict from the bureau or anybody else discouraging that from happening. I think that it was down to the committees that, whether they thought that it did not work or not, I do not know, but I think that there was a bit of a waste of an opportunity if that happened. I brought in a number of reforms. I tried very, very hard to reform the committee system. I have got to say that it was like trying to pin Blamonge to a wall to try to get any of the business managers to agree with it. We did get away with introducing topical questions on a Tuesday, changing the format of the week going Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday, instead of just meeting Wednesday and Thursday. I think that those are both great. Perhaps the changes to committee system are not least the proposal for elected conveners that I put forward. I think that the most charitable way that I can put it right now is that it's time had not come. I think that there are people in the Parliament from all parties who thought that their reforms had gone far enough. I know that Ken has taken on that mantle. I am hopeful that we will get elected conveners by the start of the next session, because I think that elected conveners are really, really important. They show that it gives a message that the conveners are elected by the Parliament and not just simply appointed by their political parties. When we talk about sharing power and openness and accountability, that is one piece of unfinished business that needs to take place. I wonder if I can also bring you in this. Just because the point that Richard makes is that there was going to be this new style of working in the Scottish Parliament, you have experienced the Westminster style. Not everyone will be aware of this, but the Government at Westminster has a lot of powers of patternage, a lot of paid positions. It is interesting to note that, since the Scottish Parliament was set up, Westminster has reformed, and they have now got elected conveners. It has made a difference. Have you any thoughts about those contrasting styles having experienced them both? The work of the constitutional steering group was essentially to look at Westminster, and not for the sheer hell of it, but to try and devise something for Scotland that would overcome what we have perceived as some of the problems there. Clearly, and I hate to use the B word, but we see excessive tribalism, excessive partisanship, and huge power of the executive, which has always been the case at Westminster. There was a great determination to try and move this on. Even the horseshoe-shaped Parliament was a major change. Westminster has the chamber, the boxes, the two red lines running up the chamber, which are two sword lengths apart. In the early days, if you did not win by discussion, you could take them outside and have a sword fight. All of that was to be pushed into the background. I think that it has significantly worked. Although, when you talk about the rapporteur, the European Parliament, it was really a part to European eyes our Parliament and the way we do things. I am a great believer in the idea of coalitions. I am a great believer in the idea of consensus. Certainly in the early days, it was an experiment with the Lib Dems. You actually talked to the opposition parties. How novel, when you reflect on it? It seemed to be that there was a push to be more European than there was to be more Westminster. Just a point, Presiding Officer, on the question of the committee system. The committee system at Westminster does have powerful investigative committees. I was privileged to be on the Public Accounts Committee in my early days. I do not think that we have quite replicated the same level of investigative committees in the Scottish Parliament. Partly because of numbers. You have 129 people. It is very difficult to have bill committees and select committees spread it over. That is why they were joined. However, I believe that in the future there is much more purpose that we could embrace in relation to more investigations. Just for pure interest, tonight my first invitees would be ScotRail, but as a five traveller I will leave it at that particular point. In that sense, the committees could have another look. I agree entirely with the idea that the Parliament should vote in the chairs and not the party structure. Again, we would be moving in a very positive way, not because we are trying to distance ourselves from Westminster, but to be quite honest with you, the governance of Scotland looks exemplary at the present time relative to the shambles that exist at Westminster. To move forward with the Parliament that we have, I think that there are great opportunities, and hopefully we will take them. Young man at the back there, yes? My question was around Donald Jure's famous phrase about devolution as an event and not a process. I suppose those of us who have observed devolution as it has developed would say that it has developed quite asymmetrically across Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales. Given that one of the core tenets of devolution was that it would appease nationalist sentiment in Ireland, Wales and Scotland, has that asymmetry with hindsight had the opposite effect and fragmented the concept of the union and the unionist identity in the UK? That is a huge question. I think that the one that many people ask about has devolution encouraged a certain direction of travel or worked against it? Annabelle, can I just bring you in on that very point? It is something that Robyn touched on as well about perhaps centralisation and localism, but is the United Kingdom in a different place because of devolution, but is it actually now moving in a totally different direction and fragmenting? I can see why from one perspective you might think that. I actually have a feeling that with the global world in which we live where it is very important, I think, that individual constitutional entities have influence, whether that is Scotland with its devolved parliament, Scotland as part of the United Kingdom. I actually do not think that devolution has threatened the union. I think what devolution did was it gave people a confidence that they could address a lot of domestic issues locally in Scotland and I think have been doing that to very good effect. Now there will be different views as to the policies and the politics of what should be applied in that scenario, but I think if you have that confidence to deal with domestic issues, you can feel at ease with a constitutional structure where you are part of a, as we are part of a partnership of another four nations. We do not know what lies ahead. Certainly the last independence referendum in Scotland when people were given the choice, they decided to stay with the existing constitutional structure. We do not know what lies ahead. I mean no, I will be surprised to hear that I think the union has a value and I think it is something that is worth supporting, that it delivers benefit, others will disagree with that. But I do not think of itself, just because we have devolution, that of itself is a threat to the union. I think what may be a greater threat to the union is whether voters feel impotent, marginalised, uninvolved, disengaged. That to me is a much more dangerous scenario and that is where there is an obligation on all politicians to try and ensure that they are doing everything that they can to dispel that view. Can I go back to the committee thing if I may, because there was something that did strike me as Henry and Trisha were speaking. Because the Scottish Parliament is unicameral because it is a one-level legislator, the committees were always going to have a vital role in reviewing legislation because the strength of the legislation, no matter how well intended by the Scottish Government of the day, regardless of its political composition, the strength of the legislation is only going to be as good as the scrutiny, the preparation, the exploration and the ability to identify weaknesses or flaws before that legislation finally is translated into law. This is where I feel that, if I may say so, I think the Scottish Parliament has got a distance still to travel because it seems to me that the strength of the Parliament would actually be enhanced and reflected by stronger committees. I do feel that very firmly. As part of the Government at Westminster, sitting in the front bench in the House of Lords, I can tell you some of the most difficult things that I have to deal with. Our committee reports from the House of Lords where the convener is a member of my own party. By golly, the punches are not pulled, I can tell you. There is a real sense of independent thought, there is a real desire to look at the issue regardless of party allegiance or adherence, and try to get to the heart of what is working and not working, what may be strong, what may be weak, what might be an improvement, what might be worth eliminating or getting rid of. I do feel that, in a sense, there is still a journey for these committees to go. The Parliament and Scotland would benefit if some fresh air could blow through the committees, and the backbenchers making up those committees felt that they had a voice, a voice that really could resonate. Also, not all talent is found in Government. Very, very important talent can be found in the backbenchers of all political parties. It is important in the Parliament to give these backbenchers an opportunity to show their skills, flex their muscle and let them get on with doing a good political job that many of them are very capable of doing. I think that, at the moment, it is slightly inhibiting under the current committee structure for that process to take place. I suspect that we might come back to this whole issue of party discipline, tribalism, party loyalty and so on, and how the conflict between that and the promise of the new politics. George, I want to bring you back in, perhaps back on that earlier point, about the nature of the political setup in the Etihad Kingdom at the moment. I think that it is a fallacy to think that that has facilitated the debate moving in one direction or another. If you look at European countries, there is a great mix of Germany with 16 landers who are relatively powerful, but they are still a very united country. They are united after being broken up after the Second World War. France is very essentialised, and there are different models across Europe. Not one model is responsible for any kind of political direction. What we do see, and what worries me most about politics, is that the post-war consensus that we are sharing soventry is coming together and binding nations economically so that you can act together and bind the nations together. That whole post-war consensus seems to me to start and to break down. Brexit is the most extreme example of it, but we are not alone in terms of countries around Europe where the exact same thing is happening. The rise of parties who are much in favour of taking power back to the nation state rather than pulling at a super-national level. You will only have to look at what is happening in the United States. It is the Trump's whole agenda that is driven by America first. It is a big phenomenon, and we have to put it into that type of context. For me, I am unsure how we put all of this back together. We are about to have a European election, and I suspect that the populist parties could well be the official opposition in the European Parliament. The socialists and the EPP will not have enough numbers to form a governing majority, which is what usually happens in the European Parliament. Is that whole worldwide pulling back from sharing power and sovereignty is the right way to make sure that we prosper and deal with problems? That is the bit that really concerns me about where we are going at the moment. I do not see a way that we manage to control and pull it back. Those are questions on many of our minds at the moment. Ken, if you have any thoughts, just catch my eye and I will bring you in. It has all been quite gentle so far. You have also been writing very supportive columns. Anybody who can ask questions from upstairs does not think that you are out of the line of sight there. I can see Jamie McGregor, one of my former colleagues. I am just going to bring in a few other members first, Jamie, and I will come back to you. A young man up there, and I will come to you, Kenny. Yes, a young man there with the red tie on. Here comes a microphone, that is good. My name is Ryan McShane. I am a member of the Scottish Youth Parliament currently, alongside my colleague Liam. One of the main and biggest successes that we have had is implementing votes at 16. It was just to get your views as a panel if you think that that has been successful in influencing young people to commit to politics in Scotland. Votes at 16, yes. One of the, again, the bigger changes that have taken place here, and we want to contribute first, Henry, in the first round. Just to agree, it makes no sense that we shouldn't give 16-year-olds the vote in every election in the United Kingdom and in Europe. There is a big debate in the United States just now about, in the aftermath of school massacres and a whole range of bad things that are happening in the US about young people getting involved. Strengthens democracy, and now people say that 16-year-old doesn't have the experience, doesn't have the knowledge, doesn't have the brain power. Hey, I meet a lot of people as old as I am, and they've maybe not evolved either, so I think that that position is not sustainable, not tenable. So I think it would be good. It would be a shot in the arm because, you know, millennials, young people generally, there are so many issues, including climate change, which is so, understandably, to the forges now. They should be involved, and the best way to do that is to say, not only can you contribute in rallies, campaigns and other activities, but you do have the most powerful way to change in this country, if you're a democrat, and that is to utilise the vote that a lot of people fought hard for. So the sooner 16-year-olds get the vote, the better. Kenny Farkerson from The Times, any questions for our panel or any thoughts? Thanks, Presiding Officer. In the spirit of learning from our mistakes, learning from the past 20 years, can the panel identify missed opportunities in their own personal experience, perhaps, and the regrets of the last 20 years? That's obviously difficult, isn't it? I can see all their eyes ducking down now. Any thoughts? Emmy, you wanted to go first on this. You, Robin, did you take advantage of every opportunity? That's very unfair. Well, I don't know if we've had a chance or not, but in the Green Party we drew a lot of red lines, and I don't think it's a good idea to draw too many red lines in politics, you know, about who you're going to be able to work with and why or why not. And I think we missed enough opportunity in 2003. I won't go any further than that. Well, you'll leave it tantalised now. George, you're... Yeah, I think if you had predicted before the Parliament was set up and constituted that, it's the big policy differences that we enacted, which were tuition fees, of course, and free personal care, free prescriptions, et cetera, that the Parliament would choose actually to reward those who, you would argue, are the better off in society rather than taking that opportunity where there was a lot of public expenditure available at that time, to actually target those from the least well-off in our society. So I think if you'd been arguing at the beginning where the reasons for setting up the Parliament would have been actually to tackle the problems facing those who were least well-off and yet we took the decision to do the opposite, in my view. I think the other one is, I think if you had suggested that 20 years on down the track, that our government structures below the Scottish Parliament would be the ones that a Tory government in 1992, I think, was put in place. So local government health boards are virtually the same. The only difference where we've made changes, of course, on the police force where that has been centralised and it's not been without its difficulties. I think that in these two areas it's really surprising that the Parliament chose A to do nothing and B to make the choices that it did make. Trisha, it's your turn. I think that there's been a lot of really fine achievements by the Scottish Parliament and I think we should focus on them quite a lot, whether it be votes at 16, whether it be minimum alcohol price in the smoking ban, free personal care, and the adults who are incapacitable on the first piece of legislation that we actually passed in here. But I do think that the Governments that we have had since 1999 have not been brave enough to tackle local government and that there have been opportunities for local government reform. Every single Government has walked away from it. I can remember having discussions with my good friend, who is sadly no longer with us, Tom McCabe, who was Labour's first business manager, and Tom and I spoke often about the reform of the public sector. I've got to say that there has been no appetite very much to do it. I think that there's a lot of vested interests in making sure that it doesn't happen and that's why I said that I thought that none of the Governments have been brave enough to say that we've now got a Scottish Parliament. It was never anticipated that local government would stay exactly the same. There should have been some sort of commission to look into local government reform and I think that that is one of the areas of Scottish public life that we do need to address because it is ridiculous that you've got 32 local authorities, 32 chief executives, 32 directors of education and 32 directors of do, do, do, do. We are a country of five million. If you are going to reform local government, you do need to talk about what Robin talked about. That is devolving down to the lowest possible level, the community councils, making sure that they have power. It was always assumed that the community councils would have a big say in Scottish life when they were set up in the first place and it simply never happened. I think that that is the big gap that we have got and I think that that's what should have been tackled. To be fair, though, we did change the voting system. PR for local government actually broke up all the big strongholds where there was dominated by one party. We did one step but we were frightened to touch the actual infrastructure and the Governments that sat there. I think that at least you can argue that PR for local government made a huge difference in terms of who sets and represents those in the town halls and made sure that your vote actually counted. I think that that was to be applauded but the rest of it we just backed off because we were either too scared or unsure. All the colleagues want to come in now and I'll bring you all in but I want to bring the audience in first as a gentleman right there and then Jamie. My question is really about, you've went through the celebration part and how you committed being but just some points you're bringing up in relation to transparency and scrutiny and Robin you brought it up first in terms of community councils and school councils and they're just a token paper exercise. They don't represent any MD other than the head teachers or the local political party. It's most dominant in an area and they only get funded when they want to push them on a specific reason. It's the same here but I watched the convener's debate yesterday and each convener was discussing with the First Minister the lack of transparency in health, the lack of accountability in health, the lack of ability to get data for things like young people's mental health and how that was operating throughout the country and throughout local authorities and health boards. I happened to go to Strathclyde today and there was a talk and it was young carers that were there and it was heartbreaking listening because I've not got any involvement in that but when you're saying you're looking for a committee to be a chair to be elected, why isn't it somebody that's been a carer or been in the care system? Why do you think you is there not a bit arrogance about having a committee to discuss what they have been through when in fact they should be making the agenda and pushing it forward? It was another very interesting guy there who was a judge or a sheriff and he was looking at the difference between putting the community payback and actually getting an individual who are going into difficulties and making sure they were getting housing, getting a job, getting training, getting health. All things with other human beings would expect that these guys just didn't know how to manage it because of the trouble to hide through in their lives. So it's all very good having a discussion here about legislation but it's just a piece of paper and if you haven't got the scrutiny here and you haven't got the scrutiny locally and people can't access it and can't complain about it locally then you've got to ask yourself what's different between you and Westminster, really? Andy Will, you've raised a number of points there about transparency and openness about whether or not, for example, the lived experience of people is taking account of here which perhaps we'll pick up on. I can tell you, just speaking for somebody who's still a parliamentarian, that the committees are still very actively engaged in trying to hear directly from the people whose lives are shaped by the public services delivered or financed by this Parliament and the laws shaped by this Parliament. So there's an attempt to listen to those voices, whether that translates into the service that they want to receive is a different matter but I think there's an attempt. Now Henry, you wanted to get back in possibly on the earlier point but yeah but a comment on that, I mean my concern is a genuine one about local government, I mean I was the leader of five regional council in the 80s, there's probably a purple patch for local government but I think there's a crisis in local government, there's a financial crisis, there's a crisis of confidence, there's a crisis of identity and the point you make is, I mean I'm no great believer in strengthening alternatives to local government through community councils and school councils, I think there are people capable of running communities and running schools that don't need to be elected or participating and unless we take seriously local government it is diminishing in its confidence in the way it goes about and it's not just about money and one of the reasons why I think we're flailing a bit is because we talk about a constitution, now the UK doesn't have a written constitution, Scotland at this point doesn't have one either, so what is the function of local government and how important is it regarded in our society, how important is health in our society, how important is the relationships between people and our parliament, relationships between Europe, Westminster and here, if you look at Europe again you find there's much more interface facing taking place between different levels and more respect and I believe that one of the problems we've got is antipathy and I was a Westminster MP, I was in local government, I was in the Scottish Parliament and at every level there is not the same trust, respect, understanding that there should be to create a more healthy environment but what I just wanted to say was Kenny's point about you know he was asking about well couldn't it be done better or what should we have done and let me be a radical here Kenny and say that when we started the Scottish Parliament thinking about the Scottish Parliament from the convention there was this notion that we'd have a list system which is a form of PR but which is still have first past the post, that never produced natural long lasting coalitions in the way that I'd like to have seen them so one of my ideas for the future and I have to say it's only an idea in my head is that why don't we go for electoral reform scrap the first past the post and have Scotland's Parliament elected on a major change in line with much of what's happening in Europe now it is only an idea but if to try and overcome the point that I think is a Parliament we have to want consensus we have to want coalitions and look 95% 96% of everything that happens in here most people agree with but the politics of tribalism can end up is exploiting the politics of difference so we will fight on the 4% but we will agree on the 96 and so therefore there's a simple message to me in that that the Parliament has done extraordinarily well and I'm a great champion of it something to celebrate but I think it's practical steps we can take as I said to become more Europeanized regardless of Brexit and whatever happens there and also take Scotland forward in the way that has been been outlined by the fact that not only have some of the legislation been sound secure for Scotland but it's world-class legislation the Parliament put through the ban on smoking in public places the fourth country in the world to do that that should give us impetus to be more ambitious more assertive maybe more aggressive and Parliament should be the way to lead Scotland forward and I think there's great opportunities in that sense now I've number of people have caught my eye I'm going to take Jamie McGregor first and then the young one in the first front look Jamie McGregor thank you yesterday I got a message to do with the European elections from Mr Farage I expect many other people got it as well and my son said to me I see you got a message from the breakfast party and I said no I said isn't it called the Brexit party and I said why do you call it the breakfast party you said well it's a dog's breakfast dad um but my two questions are um the only point he made in it was that British politics is broken my first question is does the panel agree with that or will normal service be returned in a couple of years or so and the second point is if the Scottish Parliament had to deal with it would it have been much more effective or would the same thing have happened all right nice simple questions I'm going to ask Annabelle and I'm going to think about it for a second but I'm going to bring in the young woman in the front row of the gallery there who has caught my eye just wanted to get more audience participation and just while they were waiting I'm getting a lot of questions on Facebook now another one about shouldn't there be greater youth involvement in the Parliament I've had several questions about that specific question for you Tricia about your involvement in politics as well so young woman I was wondering if the panel could share their thoughts on the impact that devolution and the establishment of the Parliament has had on the involvement and representation of women in Scottish politics and perhaps what work is still to be done how we might go about that thank you so Annabelle I'm going to bring you in first so you might want to deal with that question but the involvement of women in politics or the couple of set up questions from clearly from Jamie McGregor for you there and then Robin the one I liked best was from Kenny but I'll try and cover all Kenny you asked you know is there anything we regretted any any omission that we we regretted yeah in my case I regret greatly I did not join the Scottish Parliament Weight Watchers Club which was attended by a number of colleagues to very good effect and it is a solitary instruction to me to learn from what others are doing and not be afraid to do that if I may go to the young lady first of all about women's representation I mean the whole one of the founding aspect for this Parliament was it should be family friendly that it should be constructed in a way that it did not prejudice against or militate against women being part of it and I think I'm correct in saying in the first election in 99 we had a very good female representation I can't remember the precise percentage 48 women 37 percent representation yeah and and it was a very credible performance indeed and it did suggest that the the sort of architecture of the the Parliament not the buildings but the architecture of how the Parliament should be designed and how it was meant to function was perhaps having an effect on that I know there was a different subsequent elections and then I think it went back up again so it's not something I think we can ever take for granted I think I think some women will naturally want to have a voice be good at having a voice and we'll find out a way in which to use that voice and we've had some very very fine examples of that in this Parliament from all parties over the last 20 years but there may be other women who still feel inhibited and I think there's maybe still a job to be done about how we reassure give confidence educate and it's partly for the political parties to do themselves but I think in the whole we've got quite a good story to tell you know we've got Nicola Sturgeon female first minister Tricia was the first female Presiding Officer a number of female leaders of parties up here have been produced so a good example good example and I think encouragement for other women but not something that should ever leave us taking it all for granted because that will not work and we can't take it for granted the really big question from not applying the other questions weren't big questions but the testing the perplexing question from Jamie McGregor I have to say that brexit has been one of the most divisive issues I've known in my whole life whether in or outside politics and as many of you will be aware brexit has divided families it's dividing parties it has proved to be an issue around which it has been very very difficult to get any form of consensus as Henry was was desirous of seeking my own view is that and I was a remainder I voted to remain but you know if you say to people we're going to give you a say and we're going to listen to what you tell us you know I think there's a huge obligation to get on and deliver that I really do and I think that what we're seeing is a disillusion by the public in politicians across parties I have to tell you and certainly down at Westminster there has been a constant demonstration of anger and frustration by both sides of the argument with placars saying that politicians are denying them what they want in the one hand and on the other hand saying that politicians are betraying the country and and we should remain and this is proving to be a very very difficult issue indeed now time is going to I think ensure that one way or the other something happens one way or the other my impression is that the country is crying for the thing to move on in some fashion and um I think once that has happened um and and we cannot tell what's going to happen in in the house of commons um when the house of commons took control of the business schedule of the parliament and said look we're taking control we're not letting the government now run the business of the commons we the house of commons will take control you know free enough but they weren't able to agree in anything um so that is a measure of the sort of paralysis we're in it's not good for the country um I don't think it's good for people's morale and it's certainly not good for um the integrity of politics it's it's it's it's very damaging to it I think we all want to see a situation where one way or the other situation is resolved and we move on because going back to Kenny's question um I was struck I mean I was looking at some headlines recently and this is not a party political comment but you know we're aware of challenges in the health service we're aware of challenges in the education system we're aware of a lack of gps we're aware of a lack of uh stem subject teachers we're aware of a worrying um level of students wanting to study the stem subjects you know that was being talked about 10 and 12 years ago when I was in this parliament so you know all I'm saying Kenny is that these issues are not new and you know they have to be dealt with they have to be dealt with now whether that's political will whether it's different types of policy whether it's radical thinking that is for the msp's in this place to determine but I think it is revealing that you know 10 12 years on we are still discussing issues that were topical all that time ago and we don't seem to have answers to these issues I think I will um Robin I'm just going to bring you in because although the quite the first question was set up there about the the possible breaking up of the current system but in many ways certainly breaking up a dominant two-party system has surely been for the benefit to hear of the green party and other voices Lib Dems and others to hear that multiplicity of political voices in Scotland so do you think of what's happening now as that fragmentation as a bad thing or actually a good thing an opportunity for for green politicians for example to meet their mark well first I I find it a bit frightening to think of it as being fragmentation as if everything's breaking apart the huge stresses um those have been caused by the use of a very blunt instrument the referendum and I think we need to take a look at how we go about referendums of 51 to 49% divides the country um perhaps we should say that there should be a higher point in a referendum like 60% of the vote before government has to take notice of it um that's that's that that's the first point the second point is that British politics have I think very successfully managed our present and our future for a large number of years through most parties of that all parties have their their left right and centre and these sort of move together and where we find the answers that people can tolerate are where the the centres of those parties collide if you like and we get the decisions that take us forward what's happening now is that extremist populists are commanding people's attention in a way that they haven't done for very many many years I do find that frightening I find that very dangerous indeed um that the politics of assertion um this is something you know when actually there are very little in the way of facts or evidence to support what they're saying um so this this I'm sure can be addressed but I think the mistakes were made they should we should never have had a referendum for a start on leaving Europe um that that was a dreadful mistake but the other mistake was that um Westminster blessed their cotton socks um don't take the further away you are from Westminster more likely you are to be ignored and that's why we wanted our own parliament um and that's why the people in the north of England are so dissatisfied and so fed up with things as they are at the moment that they have reacted in the way they've done as the only way they have in their armory of taking a kick at Westminster George I can see you want to get in well bring in a second I I'd also just comment just following off on your point there Robin that without relation to the overly controversial the Scottish government is about to publish a new referendum bill very very soon so it's it's it's not certainly off the political agenda now when a question about women MSPs I'm very conscious I can see iron old father Margaret Smith and Mary Scanlon three of my colleagues are colleagues and Mary Scanlon had her hand up to ask a question Mary yes I did actually I was quite struck by Henry when he mentioned over 200 pieces of legislation but it was the gentleman in the second back row who really hit home when he mentioned the young carer and and that's he he expressed a view that I feel about very strongly I was here for four sessions of parliament from 99 to 2016 and it was one piece of legislation after another it just kept churning and churning out so probably I was part of countless pieces of legislation but I spent about one day one morning doing post legislative scrutiny on a minor minor part of the mental health bill and also if I may say a priori of officer four of us here were on the free personal care bill in the first session of parliament this was our convener and afterwards it was the implementation of that and I think what we believed was being implemented and passed in legislation was not how it was be implemented by local government and quite often in parliament you would say well what about this and what about this that'll be done in guidance so although we passed the legislation and the act of parliament the important part of the scrutiny was guidance and that was done by civil servants and quite often that led to a disconnect between what we wanted to happen and what actually happened I just wanted to put that in because this gentleman's commentary we hit home I can see that and I can see I don't know if I was going to but before you do I actually want to bring in Esther Robertson if I can Esther and Esther Ecclissiolaire was sat on the original consultant of the steering group that devised the principles on which this pyramid is founded and which this discussion is premised Esther you would make a point could I make a couple of points and come back to Mary's I think because that's really fundamental for me I was originally co-ordinated of the constitutional convention before I got into the the csg and I have to say I'm very conscious of big names like Campbell Christie and Kenyon Wright sitting on my shoulder tragic they're not here and I can only think they would be hugely proud that we're here having this discussion because I would start by saying and Henry will smile I have a son who's almost exactly the same age and I can tell you he's not grown up yet so I think this parliament still got some growing up to do but it's a young person we should be very proud of because I think it's come a very long way I do think the committee discussion is the most interesting one of all and I'm going to remind you of some drafting you did Henry because you actually helped us in the csg remember that the parliament wouldn't just be about legislation it's a participative approach to the consideration I'll get the wrong round development consideration and scrutiny of policy and legislation and I think Trisha made the point about our rules were hypothetical we did enormous work on the number of bills we thought the parliament would deal with every year we never imagined despite the backlog we knew there was it would do the amount of legislation that it's done and I think there's two issues there for me one is I think we are at risk of thinking because it's a legislature if we've got a problem we should legislate for it and sometimes legislation's not the answer but the second bit is that when the convention scheme devised the committee system it was to make those committees really knowledgeable and really specialist in their area so they could hold the parliament to account so that it could do its own investigations get out and meet the young carers and all of that but because of the volume of legislation they've not had the time to do that and I think that's been one of the challenges I like to think that legislative process will slow down a bit and we might step back from it and I think picking up Mary's point one of the things I was frustrated by was that we thought that the committees would start at investigations of their own they would do the consideration of government they would scrutinise legislation and they would do the post legislative scrutiny so they would know what they were talking about and I was really disappointed that it ended up in the audit committee because I think that that was not what was ever intended and there may be good reason for it so that that would might be my small point but I think the committees have done a really good job in the circumstances on a workload we never envisaged which has grown with the powers of the parliament when the numbers haven't I think the only thing I would say and a number of you have reflected on it for me I think the only disappointment vote around the convention table would have is that party politics and tribalism has played a much bigger part and I don't think we can just blame Kenny in the media I don't think it's all about the media at all I do think Henry's right we in the public know that most of you are not more you now but you know most of the politicians agree on most of the issues but you wouldn't believe that when you watch what goes on in this chamber so I'd like to think as the parliament matures we might get back to that more consensual approach whether your answer has changed the voting system I'm not sure but I for one I'm very proud of what the parliament's done and I think it's something we should all be pleased about and I'm delighted with some of the contributions that the panel have made. Yes, Trisha's brush in to get in to respond to some of those points as well. Just to say how much I agree with Ester on this, the Parliament very quickly became a legislative sausage machine and the the amount of legislation that was going through the Parliament and I can remember in the first session we had to set up two justice committees because there was so much justice legislation and what that actually then did was to stop that investigative role that Ester has spoken about. It also stopped the post legislative committee because the committees were so bound up with the legislation and I've got to say that the cynic in me tells me that governments of all Hughes have actually been quite fond of the number of pieces of legislation because it makes the timetable of the committees their timetable and not the Parliament's timetable, the timescale for legislation to be examined and going through and that leaves very very little scope for anything else and one of the huge disappointments that I've had was the lack of committee legislation that has gone through in the Parliament. Now that was one of the key points that was made that the Parliament committees should be able to bring through their own legislation and I've got to say as Presiding Officer when I was a Presiding Officer I would have all these meetings with the convener's groups and others and make suggestions about how we can change the committees, how they can be stronger, how we can do things differently and always at the back of I used to say to them we have had no committee bills for I don't know how many years in the Parliament and that was one of the checks and balances that was the bit about the sharing of the power between the Parliament and the Government and that I think has been a disappointment to me and like Esther I hope that we can get off the treadmill that is legislation legislation legislation which sometimes you think is being done for the sake of it we have a problem we will legislate we don't always have to legislate there are policy solutions out there but what that number of pieces of legislation means is that the committees themselves the committee members are still tied up with them that they have no space to think they have no space for their own investigations and I think that that is one of the biggest failures in the Parliament. I'm bringing George back in I've said it's probably about an earlier point George but you're trying to attract my attention I think it's when we're still talking about centralisation and localisation in this in this Parliament. I mean just to follow up on the point that's made there I mean as a former whip I know in the first two parliaments the committees were really very very powerful and there was I mean there was no control there was no real control over what the committees did at that stage now I've been out the Parliament for the last 10 years but my feeling is that's not the way it is any longer because committees were certainly very very powerful in their own right in the first two sessions they tended to do their own thing and the politics were much more of a compromise people actually bandied together regardless of party disbartery allegiances to actually come up with solutions and I get the feeling that that's not the case any longer that the party whips are all powerful and that it's very much on party lines correct me if I'm wrong but that's certainly that was my experience in the first eight years was that as a party whip it was very very difficult to try and manage that if you if you so felt as if you wanted to try and do it it was virtually impossible. So just briefly say as a member of the opposition for those first eight years that was never my belief about the committees. I can remember we did a housing bill the government did a housing bill. The SNP group put forward almost a thousand amendments not one single amendment was accepted by either the committee where the government parties had a majority and I've got to tell you from an opposition perspective it was downright frustrating. I can remember I remember I sat at a committee and I put forward an amendment which I had thought was a really really good one and it was just rolled out completely wasn't accepted not at all so we came to stage three in the chamber and I had been going through all of the amendments and it suddenly dawned on me the amendment that was getting moved by the government was the amendment that I had put forward at stage two that they had voted down and they didn't even have the courtesy to say they were lifting my amendment so you know it wasn't all sweetness and light in the first eight years I am not saying that you know party politics did be getting the way afterwards but you know let us know write a story about how wonderful it was under certain circumstances and it wasn't I think it depends whether you're in government at the time or whether you were in opposition. At least you got your way in the end. I'll bring Henry and then I'll bring Irene and the gentleman up at the back. Henry first. Just to make you feel slightly better Trish you know at Westminster amendments were just a joke because essentially you know I spent 10 years in opposition with Mrs Thatcher and John Major and essentially he went into committee and so the Conservatives would sit understandably doing their constituency business because they were told shut up. We put up empty amendments and of course no opposition amendment was ever accepted you know when you then look and this is why I come back to the short termism because essentially this is the Parliament's in its infancy in a way I think that it's absolutely right to say that the Parliament has been a huge success in terms of its committee work but you know there's a limit to what you can do with 129 MSPs. Westminster has 650 of us at the time and whilst it's a bigger country the number of MPs relates to the business. How many are you suggesting we should have Henry? Well watch this space and that's why I feel that if we're looking seriously at giving more authority to our committee members, more investigative work, more time on the job, more ability to review legislation, then you have to think quite seriously about where the numbers of the Parliament might be going in the years that lie ahead. Now whether it's independence or whether it's federalism or status quo or home rule or whatever you call it this Parliament now has a lot of choices to make in relation to how I think they're elected but also to be fair to them a lot of fantastic work has been done but you cannot keep pouring you know a quart into a pint pot because essentially something has got to give so I feel that we should be more ambitious in a way we look at these things and the other point about is that only ideas you know Scotland needs ideas ideas ideas but at the end of the day I wouldn't like to think that we shouldn't applaud what's happening in Scotland and if you want as I said to look inwards to Westminster over the the 14 years I was there you know this is really powerful stuff and people complain about the the amount of legislation but you know that was the pent-up frustration at Westminster things needs to be done in Scotland some was administrative but most of it was legislative I don't see the figures actually diminishing at the present time and if Scotland requires things to be done in the interests of scots hey use your parliament use legislation hands going up all over the place now so I'm going to take iron old father and then there's a gentleman right up at the back row so I mean first thanks very much Ken and it's been really interesting to listen to this reflection on the committee structure I had the privilege of chairing a committee but I also set up and chaired a cross party group and I'd be interested in the panel's reflections on the role of cross party groups within the parliament because it seems to me that they provide a huge opportunity and to pick up the point made by the gentleman in the second row from the back they're actually sitting around the table communities and organisations and young carers are sitting around the table with parliamentarians with a huge opportunity to influence that agenda and thinking about the cross party group that the three of us actually worked on the cross party group on Alzheimer's dementia have the opportunity to produce pieces of work and we did the charter of rights and I'm proud that the two colleagues sitting beside me who are from different political parties from my own put their heart and soul into working with communities and people with dementia and their carers to produce that piece of work so to me the cross party groups in parliament provide a great opportunity I don't know if there needs to be a little bit of amendment around how they're currently working but that might be something that the panel would want to reflect on thanks and I asked the members to think about who wants to respond to that point while I take the gentleman right at the very back up there I just wonder what the panel feels about how the standard of debate has changed over the last 20 years has it improved is there still room for improvement and has the famous horseshoe shape which Henry referred to actually encouraged a sort of consensus certainly sitting in the press gallery it never looked like that and I suppose it never will but I would be very interested to hear whether the actual sort of atmosphere of the parliament has improved the standard of debate very good we'll have a thing with that I know that Kenny Farkson was talking about the first speech by Donald Dewar talking about the voices of the marines the ring the speaker of the marines that's right didn't the ship where there's no welders well a new voice in the land that's exactly it now I want to skip generations if you don't mind me saying so to a young woman just over here yes so I'm 17 years old so I'm not even as old as the devolved government here and I know that social media has played a huge role in my involvement in politics and my choice to actually study politics specifically the independence referendum in 2014 was kind of my first taste of Scottish politics at 13 but I was wondering actually what your thoughts were on devolvement and the reflection on then and now and the youth involvement in politics specifically Scottish youths you know with pressing issues discussed such as young mental health issues that I'm quite passionate about or even the scrapping of music tuition you know just with discussion of 16 year old votes and how like you think youth will have their competence at 16 to you know be involved in politics and have that level of knowledge to vote in politics at 16 thanks very much good point yes good point now can I just ask the panel to respond to a couple of different points there cross-party groups a standard of oratory in the parliament and our involvement and the support that we give young people and whether or not that has been whether that has changed over the 20 years of this parliament problem and I can see you looking at me unless you know that that's quizzically or with enthusiasm I'm trying to concentrate my marks on this one down but as much as I can one of the things about the debates is a five minutes six minutes limit I think every MSP should be given a ration of time to use over the year so that just occasionally you can stand up in this chamber and give a reason long speech of 15 to 20 minutes where you can show that you've been listening to other people and comment on what they've been saying and and and that would be a debate what what happens at the moment is not a debate if you've got five minutes you take one intervention and if you politely and do mention another MSP's contribution that's a third of your time gone um and you're left with three minutes which is 150 words well 300 if you speak very fast um but um you you can't that they're not debates they're just you know I've never I I remember very very few um discussions in this parliament in in here that could have qualified as being a real debate debates happening committees I wish that the press would comment on what happens in committee more than they do I would just add two comments out if I may just um as somebody who's currently looking at that very issue through parliamentary reform um we do some of the best debates are actually in the what are called the members debates after the vote so they're not whipped anybody can contribute and they're nearly always slightly more thoughtful very less uh party political less tribal and and another issue that auspies into it one of the biggest features of this parliament is that we are family friendly we have a decision time at five o'clock every day it's one of the most important um principles in which the parliament is founded but a downside if you can call it downside is that everything then works back from five o'clock and you have time limited debates on everything because if you have to have the votes at five then you've only got let's say three hours for a debate or two and a half hours for a certain debate and then you have to be proportional therefore you have to divide the time up within that and that's how you end up with this you get a six minute speaking slot or a four minute speaking slot and in that four minutes you've got to get a couple of points across and therefore you don't take intervention so it becomes a slightly self-fulfilling prophecy and so people end up standing up and reading their party positions at opponents rather than discussing issues so I just say that because we are wrestling and in fact we've introduced a new reform and it's already in place that if we can agree on a debate members can take more time and by agreement members can stand up and speak for 12 minutes so long as they discuss it with me and others beforehand because I'm in the chair and that but so far nobody's really pushed that we've had a couple of nine minute contributions but that's all we've had so far so but I'm still full of hope for that now cross party groups Annabelle or George did you ever sit in a cross party group were you a fan of the way they allow access to the parliament yes I was I think on certainly one if not a couple I agree with Irene I think they have a relevance the great thing about a cross party group is it diffuses and this is Esther's concern it diffuses the part of political friction because you get people bonded together by an interest in something whether it was you know dementia whether it is mental health issues affecting young people for example they are bonded by that interest and they will work constructively they will have an open remit to invite people in to speak to them to hear of experiences to learn about views and then they can compile a report and if I were a government I would be very close attention to what that cross party group was telling me because it might very well be the genesis of some much needed legislation so I think they do have a role to play Henry you are nodding I think particularly at the involvement of the young people as well yeah I mean I agree with the cross party groups I mean that's a great way to build consensus but the other point maybe if I could make an without boring people analogy with football you know if you're good enough you're old enough I mean I was in chair of a local government committee when I was 23 I played a first professional game at 16 and what I say to young people is put yourself forward come forward because you'll be patronised as I was and I have done to say the future is about our young people this is a fantastic opportunity for us to do that and so as they're far smarter people around when I was you know first in local government far better football players than I was when I first played professionally so hey take it take it with the bull with both horns and get on with it because we need young people the second point I just want to make was the question of Jamie raised Jamie are you listening right belated that I just want to say anything at Farage says about broken politics I wouldn't agree with Farage on anything but secondly Jamie in terms of Scotland might doing it better we just have to remember we voted to remain that would have solved a big problem in Scotland as we did in terms of the vote and finally the point about finally the point about the horseshoe shape I think psychologically it's a lot better I remember standing at the dispatch box during the devolution debate and one of the English ministers threw a Scotsman at me that was the only perl that I nearly fell under so but psychologically it's good and the quality of debate I think is influenced by Robin's point you cannot have a speech or three six or 12 minutes and apart from maybe a bank of minutes you can use during the year it would be a great opportunity to allow parliamentarians to have a longer speech sometime not just a maiden speech a longer speech and if it's anything to cheer you up Robin when I did my maiden speech in the House of Commons it was July it was 1 30 am in the morning it was about the future of local government and there was five people in the chamber hey we've done a lot better than that so let's stick with it Tricia I think you covered very well Presiding Officer the difficulties of extending speeches and also to hold to the principle that's a family family parliament and that would need a huge change in the way that we operate you know if we want to go on till 12 o'clock at night one o'clock in the morning then fine you can have as long speeches if you want but having sat through some of the Brexit debates quite frankly speeches of 30 35 minutes not only are boring but I'm not sure that they contribute much to the greater wisdom that there is but you know if you want a final friendly parliament you've got to make concessions about how you can achieve that same thing cross party groups I agree I think we cross party groups work they work well and I think they've made a huge contribution to this place I think it's one of the finest things we've done I think there's too many there's not enough MSPs I think there needs to be a bit of consolidation of the cross party groups you can have a cross party group on every single health issue there is and sometimes that's how it feels in terms of young people I think I want to mention two things firstly I don't think we've even talked tonight about our public petitions committee which was you know a world leader in what we did or the electronic voting we were so ahead of it but one of the other things that we did that is rarely spoken about is that at the very inception of this parliament we had an education centre with an education centre up the road we've got an education centre built in here we've got train teachers we've got youngsters from all over scotland we've come in here they engage in their parliament they learn about their parliament they meet the parliamentarians and I think that's been fantastic and we've also had almost from the beginning the scotish youth parliament which runs in parallel to this parliament and they have had some great campaigns they have been really engaged I think we are not perfect I think votes for 16 is a huge leap forward I agree with Henry that we need to have votes at 16 in every single election that we have but I think we've come an awful long way and we are far further ahead there I think most parliaments throughout Europe or the world. On the issue of speeches I mean I look back fondly having six minutes to speak after experiencing the European Parliament where the maximum length of time was two minutes and it was through interpretation so six minutes was the soundest to me a really luxurious amount of time and I think if you actually think back to some of the big contentious debates around free personal care myself good number of Irene Margaret etc Mary Scanlon all took part it was a hugely powerful debate despite the fact that we were only limited to four or five months the fishing debate was another one massively powerful debate so I'm not convinced it's only just about the time it's actually about the subject it's about how motivated the politicians are to express themselves and you find that in very very big debates of content where there's real contention you actually find that politicians are within 45 minutes can actually articulate and make very powerful speeches in favour or against the issue that's before us so I don't think we want to get too hung up on time maybe the problem is too many bland debates where there's actually nothing at stake so you maybe but should maybe think a little bit more about that and a final point from Robin yes parliamentary engagement with schools and young people the cross party group on children and young people is one of the best attended cross party groups in the entire parliament this certainly was when I was here and I hope it's I hope it still is anybody confirm that I hope so we also hosted the finals of one of the big debating schools debating competitions but essentially this is where schools come in that schools are educational system should be giving young people the confidence activities in school that give them the confidence to get up and speak for themselves comment I made earlier about school councils if you don't give them a budget then it's toy politics all they learn is when they go to the head teacher with the discussions they've had and he says no or she says no all all they've learned is that politics does democracy doesn't work um there that that that our schools really that there's something but when they disaggregated the the regions um a whole lot of extra things for people things taught us extras like outdoor education went out the window every school in Lothian region had a school bus that took people out had they had skiing they had teachers got time off to take take kids away this is all disappeared and yet everybody knew how fundamentally good outdoor education can be for the development um personal development of young people in terms of confidence and getting on with other people empathy and all these things that will make the politicians of the future and good politicians and I think some of these good politicians are clearly in this room but I'm afraid despite I can see catapedia and other members hands going up now I'm afraid it's not the end of the evening because we're going to adjourn downstairs at which point please grab one of the many politicians either on our panel in the room and over glass of wine continue this conversation but I'd like if you can you to join me in thanking our panel I'd like you to thank the many MSPs who've come along to join us members of the Constitutional Convention including Joyce McMillan there as well as Esther Kenny MacFarkerson and all colleagues for the times for their co-sponsorship but most of all yourselves for making this such an enjoyable night thank you very much indeed