 The next item of business is a statement by Michael Russell on progress in establishing the Citizens Assembly of Scotland, Scotland's constitutional future. The cabinet secretary will take questions at the end of his statement so there should be no interventions or interruptions. I call on Michael Russell, 10 minutes please, cabinet secretary. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Presiding Officer, on the 24 April, the First Minister announced a range of actions to take forward consideration of Scotland's constitutional future. I updated the chamber on progress on the 29 May. I am pleased to honour the commitment that I made then to do so again before recess. Of course, events over the last two months indicate that the questions over our constitutional future are becoming ever more urgent. In April, Donald Tusk urged the UK Government not to waste the additional time agreed by the EU 27. That is, of course, precisely what the UK Government has done. It is 11 weeks since the Commons last voted on Brexit, two months since it last looked at the Brexit SSI, four weeks since it heard a Brexit statement. The reality of this Brexit chaos is still being denied. A denial that led into earlier to European elections in which many thousands of our fellow EU citizens were denied their democratic right to participate. Only after her party's historic drubbing in those elections did the Prime Minister face up to the clear, unavoidable truth, the truth of her being completely incapable of delivering Brexit. But Tory truth is not infectious. For those now vying to replace her are indulging in the very same fictions and fantasies. Boris Johnson is determined to keep a no-deal exit from the EU regardless of the consequences on the table, whilst Jeremy Hunt insists that he can secure changes to the Irish backstop. But none of the solutions being offered by this tiresome twosome are in any way real. They have been ruled out again and again by the EU itself. There is no doubt, no doubt at all, that the withdrawal agreement will not be reopened. Against this backdrop and the threat to Scotland's interests, let me assure the chamber that we will continue to consider whether the referendum's bill should be accelerated and, if required, we will return to that issue after the recess. Presiding Officer, it is clear that a growing number of people in Scotland are seriously considering the issue of independence in the light of the Brexit disaster and the Tory leadership debacle. This Government was self-elected on a clear mandate that was triggered three years ago when the people of Scotland voted overwhelmingly to remain in the European Union, a mandate endorsed by a vote of this Parliament. This Government, like the majority of parties in this Parliament, will continue to do whatever we can to halt the rush towards the catastrophe of a no-deal Brexit. Working with other parties, we will continue to campaign for a people's vote on EU membership with the option of remain on the ballot, a step that the people of Scotland overwhelmingly supported in the EU elections. In her statement on 24 April, the First Minister invited all the parties to work with the Government to explore what common ground there may be between us on changes needed to equip Scotland with the powers that it must have for the future. Essentially, that gives all the parties in the Parliament the chance to say what solutions to the current constitutional crisis they would bring forward short of independence. We continue to engage seriously with the UK about such matters too, for example through the very unsatisfactory medium of the joint ministerial committee, which will meet again this Friday in the margins of the British Irish Council in Manchester. I am grateful to the three parties that have indicated their willingness to undertake exploratory discussions to put forward their views. I regret that the Liberal Democrats have declined the opportunity so far. The opportunity remains open and we will always do so. However, let me focus on the third initiative that has been announced by the First Minister, the establishment of the Citizens' Assembly of Scotland. Citizens' assemblies are becoming an established way for mature democracies to engage with complex and contested issues on an inclusive, informed and respectful basis. That is what we want for Scotland. I was delighted that we were able to hold a series of events in the Parliament last week to talk about the issue. I extend again my thanks to Artul Leary and Sharon Finnegan, the secretaries to the Constitutional Convention and Citizens' Assembly in Ireland, and to Aunty Zakharowski from the Democratic Society for making the time to share their knowledge and expertise with us. I was only sorry that I was not able to be present owing to illness. This Parliament is rightly proud of the first 20 years of our reconveined existence, but democracy does not stand still. We have to keep innovating in order to keep moving. When we see in the Brexit issue a complete breakdown in trust between politicians and people, surely it should inspire all of us, no matter our political allegiance, to find new ways to bring politicians and people together to resolve deep-seated division. This Government is determined that the people of Scotland are supported to make choices about their future with full access to the facts that they need. We want to encourage people to listen and to learn from each other, including those with whom we might otherwise profoundly disagree. That is what citizens' assemblies can do, but we are also learning about the whole process, so it is right that we should move forward a step at a time. It is important at the outset to establish a clear set of principles that will underpin the work of the assembly. I can confirm those principles today. The first is independence from government, including through the appointment of impartial and respected conveners, an arms land secretariat and expert advisory groups. The secretariat will be located outside Scottish Government offices. In addition, we intend to establish a politicians panel for the assembly to call on, as it wishes, so that all of the parties in the Parliament, not just the Government, are a resource for the work of the assembly. Transparency at all levels of the operation of the assembly from the framing of the questions to the selection of members and expert witnesses through to proactive publication and live streaming of deliberative sessions and clarity about what the outputs will be used for. Inclusion, extending not just to who is invited to take part as members, but also the operations of the assembly itself. Access, the wider public must be able to see and comment on the work of the assembly. Stakeholders must feel that they and their interests have a root into the assembly. Balance, the information used to build members and the wider public's learning must be balanced, credible and easily understood. Cumulative learning, embedded into the design of the assembly to ensure that members develop a rich understanding of the issues that are considered and have time to do so. Finally, open-mindedness. The assembly will be a forum for open-minded deliberation between participants, ensuring that the public sees it as a genuine process of inquiry and to help to ensure that it receives an open-minded response from this Parliament and from the Government. I have already touched on the role of conveners. The Government is determined that the assembly will be led by people trusted and respected across the political spectrum. I say people because I am committed to having more than one person undertake the role in order to ensure gender balance and to bringing richness of skills and experience to the role. These conveners will be responsible for stewarding, convening and representing the assembly. Having spoken to a wide range of people about the role, including seeking views of members and suggestions from across parties in the Parliament, I am delighted to be able to confirm today that David Martin has agreed in principle to take on one of those roles. David is one of the most widely respected of MEPs, not just in Scotland but across the European Union. His long service in the European Parliament has been widely recognised and praised. Discussions are continuing with other individuals interested in serving as the co-convener. I will make a further announcement, including updating MSPs in due course. At the heart of the assembly are its members. On 14 June, we launched the invitation to tender for member recruitment. 120 members of the public will be randomly selected to serve. The tender will ensure that the membership will be broadly representative of Scotland's adult population according to age, ethnic group, socioeconomic background, geography and political attitude. Members will be drawn from those eligible to vote under the new franchise and be able to attend all of the formal assembly sessions. I hope that serving as a member of the assembly will be seen as a privilege, but it is also a responsibility and a commitment. The assembly will meet over the course of six weekends from late Auckland to spring, which is in line with practice elsewhere. We are also doing all that we can to ensure that the assembly is as accessible as possible, including meeting all reasonable expenses incurred, including caring expenses. However, we can do more. Learning from the experience of other assemblies and in line with the advice that we have received in recognition of the time and effort that it will take to be involved, we will also offer a small honourarium for participation. Let me now turn to the remit. The First Minister and her statement set out three broad questions that the assembly should consider. What kind of country are we seeking to build? How can we best overcome the challenges that we face, including those arising from Brexit? What further work should be carried out to give the people the detail that they need to make informed choices about the future? In our engagement with experts and practitioners, we have heard a range of views on the remit that is required to take those questions forward. We have also heard the importance of leaving the assembly sufficient space to determine its own path, while it is also being clear to the assembly about where decisions are for this chamber and for the wider public to take. It is fair to recognise that the conveners, working with the assembly members, should and will reflect on those views as part of the process. It is important that the assembly is clearly seen to be independent when reflecting on the debate that Scotland needs. This work will be completed with the co-conveners and the remit that was published over the summer. I will ensure that members are kept informed in all stages and that my door is always open. Presiding Officer, in establishing the Citizens Assembly of Scotland, we need to do so carefully, thoughtfully and progressively. Over the course of the summer, we intend to engage widely to promote the assembly to encourage those who are invited to participate. A dedicated website for the Citizens Assembly goes live this afternoon. It will grow to contain all the information regarding the assembly and its work. It can be found at citizenassembly.scot. However, more important than anything else is that, within the remit that will be set out and with expert support, members of the assembly, once in place, are free to explore the matters entrusted to them as they see fit. It is right that the assembly will itself set many of its rules and procedures and decide how to operate. I know that politicians in this Parliament and beyond will respect not just a fair process, but those engaged in the process. We must also ensure that, as far as is practicable, we respect the outcome, too. Finally, I confirm today that, when the First Citizens Assembly for Scotland concludes, the Government will ensure that its recommendations contribute to and are seen to contribute to positive steps towards a better collective future. That commitment extends to reviewing and learning from the process and considering whether citizens assemblies should become part of the next 20 years of Scotland's story. The cabinet secretary will now take questions on the issues raised in his statement, and I will allow around 20 minutes for that. Would those members who wish to ask a question press a request to speak buttons now, please? I thank the minister for early sight of his statement, and I welcome him back to his seat. I know that he has been on well. I wish him a full recovery. I thank him also for the arrangements that he made last week for engagement with Arto Leary, Sharon Finnegan and others with direct experience of citizens assemblies in Ireland. That was a useful process. My view is that there is a role for citizens assemblies in Scotland. In Scotland, wherever possible, we are governed by representative parliamentary democracy, but there are some issues of public policy that parliamentary democracy has failed, or is struggling, to address and resolve in Scotland. Effective preventative spend is one long-term social care for the elderly is another. Critically, there is cross-party agreement, probably all party agreement, that these are massive and pressing issues of public policy that we as a Parliament struggle with. Where matters such as these to be handed to a citizens assembly, that may very well be an innovation worthy of support. But sadly, Presiding Officer, this is not what the SNP proposes. What they propose is yet another national conversation on Scotland's constitutional future. We've heard it all before, and here we go again. Last week, we learned that one of the lessons from Ireland is that, to be effective, citizens assemblies need cross-party buy-in at the beginning of the process. Well, this one does not have that. This is not a genuine attempt at a citizens assembly in Scotland. It's a nationalist stunt to kick-start a conversation about independence. As such, Presiding Officer, I'm afraid that we will have nothing to do with it, and I urge all unionists in Scotland to see this for what it is and to give it a wide berth. I think that it's entirely contrary to what I have said and the information that's been provided. I hope that, in time, the Scottish Conservative Party will realise that there is an importance in looking at this issue. I do think that it's a little rich for Mr Tomkins to be condemning the SNP for some sort of constitutional obsession. It seems to me that it was the Conservatives who encouraged the referendum to take place three years ago that has led the European referendum to the most extraordinary constitutional crisis in my lifetime. It's not enough for Adam Tomkins to pretend that it doesn't exist or to try and brush it under the carpet. I gave some statistics in my statement about how the House of Commons is paralyzed by Brexit. We've also got the extraordinary spectacle of seeing two people whom, frankly, I would not send for the messages vying to be Prime Minister. In all those circumstances, I think that Adam Tomkins has taken the wrong view, and I hope that he will change his mind because the Citizens' Assembly is designed to help Scotland not to hinder it. I hope that the Scottish Tories see that as their aim, too. Clare Baker I thank the cabinet secretary for an advanced site of a statement. First, I welcome the appointment of David Martin as one of the co-conveners and wish him well in his role. I welcome the principles of autonomy of the assembly from government and open-mindedness, but to have announced the Citizens' Assembly at the same time as a referendum bill has certainly created the impression that the Government has already provided the answer. How is the Government going to ensure a genuine process of inquiry when it has already framed within its desired referendum? Although I welcomed the meetings about the Irish experience last week, there has been no meaningful parliamentary scrutiny of this announcement, unlike the legitimacy that was achieved in Ireland with a parliamentary vote and the ability to amend. We do not be in the interests of the Citizens' Assembly to work to a more realistic timetable and allow for parliamentary scrutiny after recess. Given that context, we will offer a degree of support that provided the Government can prove that the Citizens' Assembly is free from the Government's ambition for another referendum and that the Parliament has an opportunity to scrutinise the terms of reference and the remit of the Citizens' Assembly. I welcome that more positive response. I am happy to continue to provide the evidence that this is a freestanding independent initiative. I was glad, for example, that my old university friend Gordon Brown welcomed this recently. I am grateful for that. I know that Gordon has views about how the Citizens' Assembly should go forward. I make the offer here today if Gordon wishes to discuss that with me, with Claire Baker or on his own. I am very happy to have that conversation. The important thing is to get on and to do things. I do stress and I know that Claire Baker recognises us. I do stress that we are in the midst of an extraordinary constitutional crisis. The Scottish Government is trying to provide a variety of ways in which we can engage parties in this chamber in that matter. One of them is, of course, the passage of the referendum bill, and so it should be in terms of the urgency of the issue. A second one is the cross-party discussions. I have had a detailed letter from Richard Leonard about the Labour Party participation in that and responses that are taking place. That process is moving forward and I hope that it will move forward. A third one is the entirely independent business of the Citizens' Assembly of Scotland. I am happy to continue to prove that to the member in any way that I can. I move on to the open questions. I stress that I have a lot of people who wish to ask questions. Patrick Harvie, followed by Willie Rennie. Thank you. The Greens welcome the fact that most of us at any rate see positive value in this kind of open, participative process. In Ireland, for example, green proposals ensure that their Citizens' Assembly could address climate change. That is a demand of the growing wave of environmental activism in Scotland. Will the cabinet secretary tell us, in the absence of that legislative basis for the Citizens' Assembly, how does he see positive opportunities for the relationship between the Assembly and Parliament to operate? If, for example, the Assembly chooses to address questions such as where energy policy sits as part of a response to the climate emergency, it will be completely free to do so. Michael Russell. Absolutely free to do so. I see the relationship between the conveners of the Assembly and the Assembly members and that this Parliament is being a constructive one. I hope that the conveners in helping to formulate the remit will be happy to discuss that with anybody who wishes to discuss it with them in this Parliament or outside this Parliament. It is wrong to see this Assembly as some sort of threat to the Parliament. I think that one of the Tory party candidates who did not make it to the final two described it as the Citizens' Assembly as being the creature of the Venezuelan tinpot dictators, even though another person in that race wanted to see Citizens' Assemblies. Let us be open about the contribution that our fellow citizens can make to very serious difficulties and problems. Let us be open to them making that contribution and let us in this chamber support them to make that contribution. I am grateful for the support from the Green Party. It is well received and as a result of which I think that the Citizens' Assembly will be all the stronger. Willie Rennie, followed by Annabelle Ewing. We are not participating in this latest SNP exercise. It has been set up simply to patch up the SNP's case for independence. Taxpayers' money should not be used for this party political process. If the Assembly begs the SNP Government to abandon independence, will it do so? I commit myself to listening to being public about making sure that there is reported whatever the Assembly says. If the Assembly were to say that, Mr Rennie would know that and Mr Burnett would stop talking long enough to listen to that taking place. There would be that conversation. The trouble with Mr Rennie's position is that Mr Rennie would not allow the citizens of Scotland to have that opinion. They are to have no opinion because they are not allowed to meet. I do not think that that is liberal or democratic. It speaks volumes for me that the two parties in this Parliament have set their face against involving the ordinary people of Scotland in taking forward the worst problems that we have had since this Parliament has created are the Tories and the Liberal Democrats. I am not surprised by the Tories, though I am disappointed, because I think that Mr Tomkins is more open than that. I am surprised and disappointed by Mr Rennie, because it seems to me that it is far more about competing for a tiny hardline audience than trying to take Scotland forward. Annabelle Ewing, followed by Donald Cameron. The past three years of Brexit chaos have demonstrated the damage and harm that can be caused by an ill-informed and headline-chasing approach to fundamental constitutional change. Can the cabinet secretary confirm how a citizens assembly would be able to do things differently? Michael Russell, I do think that if at any stage, over the last three years, the current Prime Minister had said to herself, I really need to listen to other people. I really need to think about the other options that exist. She could have convened a citizens assembly. Indeed, the University of London, among others, convened a citizens assembly on Brexit itself. That would have been a useful thing to do. I do think that to have an open mind about how opinion is formed in Scotland and how debate takes place is really important. That was one of the important things in the foundation of this Parliament 20 years ago. It is perhaps not surprising that the Tories have posed that too. Donald Cameron, followed by Bruce Crawford. How will this Parliament and its committees be able to scrutinise the work of citizens assemblies, their output and their cost? All those matters will be open and transparent. If I remember correctly, Mr Cameron was supporting a candidate in the Tory leadership who wanted to see a citizens assembly established. I am glad about that. The committees of this Parliament will, like everybody else, be able to look at the work of the citizens assembly, will be able to watch what takes place. Once that is concluded, then the outcomes of that citizens assembly will come to this Parliament for action. There is absolutely openness and transparency is the key to this. I have no difficulty in saying whatever the citizens assembly does, whatever it spends, should be totally open and transparent and should be subject, of course, to scrutiny. Bruce Crawford, followed by Alex Rowley. The citizens assembly has scored just one strand of the Scottish Government's approach to chart a distinctive approach for Scotland's future. I note that the cabinet secretary has previously seen courage of views and contributions from across the political spectrum. We have heard the negativity and the criticism today, but what productive steps or positive suggestions have been brought to the table by any members of the Opposition? I would have thought that, at this particular juncture, if any party in this chamber looked around and saw the enormous mess—it has been created by the UK Government and by the Tory party—there is no doubt about that. Mr Simpson is laughing at that. I think that it is not really very funny. The Government of the Bank of England today does not think that it is very funny. He has drawn an attention to the severe economic damage that is being done by the Conservatives and by the Conservative Government. That is not a laughing matter. That is the severe damage to businesses in the region that is represented by that member. In all those circumstances, the correct reaction to that is to say, let us try something different. Let us try something that does not divide but brings people together. The measure of parties in this chamber is whether they are flexible enough to do so. We know that the Conservatives are not, because what they want to do is to continue that narrow division of Brexit. It will be, as we have seen, disastrous for them—11 per cent—and falling. Alex Rowley, followed by Rona Mackay. In many ways, the political systems that we have in the United Kingdom and across Europe are breaking down. The party's political systems are breaking down. I do not think that we should fear involving citizens in big questions. We should be willing to see how that goes. However, I would not want to rush that process, and there seems to be a bit of a rush. That brings with it a risk. For those of us who believe that setting up the citizens assembly is the right thing to do, can the cabinet secretary give us an assurance that he will take whatever time is necessary to get this right? Michael Russell I will. In actual fact, the timescale that I believe, for example, for the establishment of the first attempt at this in Ireland, was roughly the same from the timescale that we are anticipating here. In terms of best practice for how this is done, it is not a rush. However, I am happy to give Mr Rowley the assurance that this will take the time that it needs to take, and it will be done in the best way that we can possibly do it. I hope that Mr Rowley, because I have known him for a long time, will accept my word on that matter. This is what we intend to do, and we intend to do it well. If Mr Rowley and others want to talk about how we do it, we are absolutely open to that. I have said that we will also be setting up the politicians panel and asking political parties for their nominations, so that the political parties can actually give their views as well. Rona Mackay, followed by Mark McDonald. Rona Mackay, can the cabinet secretary confirm what work has been undertaken to learn from the successful use of citizens assemblies in Canada, Australia, Poland and Ireland, which could be applied to its use here in Scotland? Michael Russell Rona Mackay makes a really important point. There have been examples of this being used in different ways and in different circumstances. In Oregon, for example, I understand that citizens assemblies are used to quantify the debate that takes place in a referendum, so the question in the referendum is defined by the citizens assembly and the arguments on both sides, so it provides an interlocutor role. There was a citizens assembly on electoral reform in British Columbia, which did not produce a result that was eventually translated into law. There were two referenda on it, one narrowly succeeded and one narrowly failed. There have been different and mixed experiences. Those who attended the event that the Irish organisers put forward last week know that there has been some very valuable experience, particularly with the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution, which many of us would have thought, as most in Ireland thought, was almost impossible to resolve, given the depth of feeling on both sides and the difficulty on both sides. That was done by people listening to arguments that they had never heard before. I have made that point in this statement. If you are against citizens assembly, you are against debate and discussion, and you are against putting ideas forward and having ideas considered on their merits. Forgive me, Presiding Officer, but let me finish on that point. In the Eighth Amendment process, one of the five sessions in the citizens assembly was given over to 17 advocacy organisations that brought information and views to bear. They all had to submit papers that were peer reviewed and had to be factually based. One of the members said that they were hearing things that they had never heard before. I hope that the members in Scotland of the citizens assembly will hear things about Scotland, about how Scotland goes forward that they have never heard before. That means that Scotland will hear that as well. That is a valuable contribution. I still have a few members who wish to ask questions, so brevity in questions and answers is required if we are to get everyone in. Mark McDonald followed by Tom Arthur. The cabinet secretary alluded to the briefing that was given by Irish officials last week, which I thank him for. One of the points that were made by Arto Leary was that one of the things that defined the initial constitutional convention was that members of Parliament were involved in the membership of that constitutional convention, and that created a sense of ownership of the conclusions, which perhaps has not existed in other places such as, for example, British Columbia in Iceland, where there has been seen to be a disconnect between the conclusions of assemblies and what is actually put into practice by parliamentarians. Does the cabinet secretary take a view as to whether that is an approach that is worth exploring with the citizens assembly at least in its initial stage? It is a very important point. I thank Mark McDonald for it. The difference between the convention and the citizens assembly was that there were 33 politicians and 66 other members in the convention. There were no politicians in the citizens assembly. The experience was that the second model worked better, but there was an issue about how you took the outcomes and implemented them. There was a commitment in the citizens assembly that that would be done by parliamentary committee. In other words, when the citizens assembly came to a conclusion, as it did on its amendment, that would become the subject for a parliamentary committee. I am asking the assembly and I will ask the conveners to look at what they think the best way forward for them would be in terms of how they plug into this Parliament, and I am open to ideas about that, so that the outcomes that they have contribute in a clear and positive way. It would also be utterly wrong to ask 120 people to spend their time and be involved, and not to say to them that what they do will have consequences and will have positive consequences. Therefore, we need to find the right way to do so. Tom Arthur, followed by Jamie Greene. To address any concern around the select number of people who may serve on the assembly, would the cabinet secretary set out how the wider public and organisations will be able to contribute their views to any citizens assembly to ensure that others can be involved in the important conversation about Scotland's future? Examples elsewhere tend to indicate that the citizens assembly does not want to tie their hands, but the citizens assembly will call for evidence, and they will want people to submit evidence. I have had a large number of people contact me in the past few weeks to say that they want to be involved in the process. I am grateful to all of them for doing so. I think that it is now up to the citizens assembly, as it formulates the remit that it has, to put themselves in a position where they are then asking for contributions, the length and breadth of Scotland, the civic Scotland from individuals and others. Sometimes the numbers are at large. On the Eighth Amendment, there were 13,000 submissions. They were all up on the website, so people could look at them. Some other subjects, such as the fixed-term parliaments, were only a handful, but where there is interest, people will have the opportunity to give information. The website is now open. You can begin to register your interest in it, and I hope that this will become a dynamic process. Jamie Greene, followed by Jenny Marra. The cabinet secretary wants a 120-member appointed citizens assembly to work out what kind of country we want to build. Why does he think that the 129-member democratically accountable elected parliament that Scotland already has cannot fulfil this task? Because there is a different type of debate to be had. This is a criticism that is often made in the early stages of establishing citizens assemblies in a variety of countries. The politicians say that, while we are here, we can do this. The nature of the debate is different. Actually, I can demonstrate that by this debate here. We have had exclusivity from Mr Rennie, who wants to stay out of everything. We have had condemnation from the Tories, who do not want to have anything to do with it. The reality is that, in the citizens assembly, the facts are presented, and they are presented in a way that is meant to be impartial. There is a range of information that is available. People have the opportunity to deliberate, and they can come to conclusions. That strikes me as what a parliament might aspire to, but hardly ever achieves. However, in a citizens assembly, it is in the heart of the work that we do. I would hope that that would become clear very quickly. The last question is to Jenny Marra. I know that the cabinet secretary is not a fearful man, but it seems to me from this statement this afternoon that he is a little bit fearful of parliamentary scrutiny of the remit of the citizens assembly. We know, as Patrick Harvie raised, that the climate change issue in Ireland was considered by the citizens assembly as a result of an amendment in Parliament. I think that Irish example gave the citizens assembly legitimacy because of the parliamentary scrutiny. Will he give the Scottish Parliament the final say on the remit of the assembly? Michael Russell. The final say on the remit of the assembly must come from the assembly. It would be completely ridiculous if we got ourselves to the position where we were saying, we will tell you what to think. However, I will give Jenny Marra the guarantee that the full-hearted participation, engagement with the scrutiny of the citizens assembly, is very important. If Jenny Marra would stop waving a piece of paper, I am trying to answer a question. The reality of the situation is that we want the parties in this Parliament to engage closely with the citizens assembly. This is an experiment in democracy for Scotland. Let us be open to that experiment. Let us not find ourselves in the position of trying to close down parts of that experiment before we have even started. That concludes questions on progress in establishing the citizens assembly of Scotland, Scotland's constitutional future. We will move on to the next item of business. Apologies to Gail Ross and Graham Simpson, who were not able to ask the requested questions.