 The next item of business is the debate on motion 10765, in the name of Jackson Carlaw, on behalf of the Citizen, Participation and Public Petitions Committee, on embedding public participation in the work of the Parliament. I would invite those members who would wish to speak in the debate. Please press the request to speak buttons. I would advise members that there is some time in hand this afternoon, so plenty of time for lots and lots of interventions. With that, I call on Jackson Carlaw to open the debate on behalf of the Citizen, Participation and Public Petitions Committee. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. It's been really some considerable time since I've been invited to lead a debate in what in my salad days in this Parliament, David McClechey, the chief whip used to refer to as the graveyard shift for which I routinely had a season ticket in those earlier days. I'm really thrilled and delighted to see so many people here this afternoon to embrace the concept of this report. I used to, in those days, be unrelentingly jolly as a matter of principle, of only to keep myself awake through till five o'clock, so I will be suitably jolly throughout the proceedings this afternoon. I'd like to begin by welcoming to the gallery some of those who participated in the citizens panel that we held, who were witnesses to or who advised the committee during the drafting of the report. I'd really like to thank the clerks, Lynne Tullison and Andrew Moon, who's also up at the back of the chamber, together with Alanis Miriam and Wojcek, who's just recently left us, who really were fantastically helpful on what I think Martin Whitfield and Richard Leonard, rather ungenerously called the committee's world tour, as we sought to establish what the practice of deliberate democracy was in Paris, Belgium and Dublin. I'm really here to sell to you, I'm here on a mission, to sell to you the principle of public participation in our democracy, because I do believe that the implications of the report could lead to quite a profound change in the way that democracy operates in Scotland and in the way that the public, in the widest sense, are able to engage in parliamentary life. This work began not in this Parliament, although we've been working on this for 18 months since this was added to the responsibility of the Public Petitions Committee, but in the last Parliament, because the suggestion of participative democracy arose in the then-presiding officer, Ken McIntosh, who is commissioned for parliamentary reform, which was adopted by the Parliament at that time. It was into this Parliament, really, because of Covid and other things, that the responsibility to investigate and to take forward the potential work has gone forward. First of all, I should say what the inquiry has involved. It's involved two initial surveys that gathered views from the public and organisations and academics. We established a citizens panel, I'll say more about here in the Parliament. We got feedback from the citizens panel recommendations then from the public, from photos groups, from MSPs and their staff, from conveners. I remember famously the conveners were able to go round the wall deciding which of the recommendations they liked the most and which they didn't like at all. We rejected the one that they didn't like at all, which was that a citizens panel should be set up on an MSP code of conduct. I wonder why they were so enthusiastic about that one. We worked out in doing that how has the liberty of democracy operated elsewhere in places that have been quite successful, because we wouldn't be the first Parliament to adopt this. We would still be one of the early Parliaments to adopt this, but others have adopted it really quite successfully in Ireland, in Paris and in Brussels. It's fair to say that as a committee we went on a journey. Those of you who may have heard my contribution to a recent debate on the whole question about the establishment of commissioners as creating a fresh level of government in Scotland almost by default, will appreciate that some of us in the committee were concerned that were we embedding into our process something that was potentially going to undermine democracy rather than enhance it. For reasons that perhaps it's not immediately apparent to consider, it's just as legitimate for people not to participate as it is for them to participate. I would greater weight be given to those that did than those that didn't and might that skewer outcomes for communities. We went through a journey, but it's fair to say that all of the committee became persuaded over the course of our work that it was a good thing for us to do. First of all, various themes emerged from our own citizens panel. Many of them had never participated in anything before. They were drawn randomly by an external agency to reflect all the different demographics, so not the usual suspects, as we sometimes rather unkindly refer to those who participate in the work of our committees. Those who had never participated before. Interestingly, for them it was a journey too. Many didn't realise there was a difference between Parliament and Government. I think that we very often overestimate the public's understanding of the role of Parliament in our natural democracy. We also wanted to see, as I say, the experience of others in action. That's why we went to Ireland, where, interestingly, the subjects for citizens panels are debated within the election manifesto so that they have a legitimacy if the mandate for the Government is there. Because Ireland has got so much of its social legislation embedded in its constitution, the process can sometimes end in a referendum. In Paris, the Government, the city authority there, has set up a citizens panel. They will correct their practice, because there they brought 100 people into a room and asked them what they wanted to talk about, only to find, of course, that 100 complete strangers weren't very sure, and so they went back to the city authority. The danger of that was that they were then debating an issue for perhaps there wasn't an electoral mandate. We also spoke to the country of Brussels, where they even embedded deliberative democracy into their committee processes. They brought together a committee of about 60, 45 lay people, 15 politicians. They all looked at each other with great suspicion. The 15 thought, we are very important people, we've been elected, why should we listen to you? The 45 in turn said, we know what we're talking about and you don't. After they'd got over that hurdle, that has led to very informed and constructive underpinning of the legislation that is then going through the Parliament. We saw the advantage of that. I realise that I haven't been in the committee, so I haven't been in all the discussions, but I do find this interesting about the relationship between people who are elected and people who are across sectional representation but are not elected. How does the committee see the balance between those two? I think what the committee very much feels is that the citizens' panels, whether they led by the Government or the people's panels, which is what we are recommending from within the Parliament, should be there to serve the debate and consideration of the elected representatives, not to act as a separate imperative for action to take place. I think that what came out of our understanding of the people that we have met, who participated in Paris, Dublin or indeed here, is that the key thing is feedback. People want to have feedback and they are perfectly prepared to be told that we're not going to do something if it's explained to them why we're not going to do something. That was very instructive because the lesson, whether we like it or not, of for many people who have participated in national public consultations or initiatives like that, is that if they've ever come up with anything awkward, the lead authority has then buried the whole thing rather than have to discuss it. The cumulative effect of that is a sort of suspicion and a cynicism that there really was any genuine endeavour in the part of the panel to consider what the people who participated in it had actually thought. Feedback is the key but an understanding that it should be the national parliament that ultimately makes its key decision. Liam McArthur. I'm fascinated by his discourse. We've obviously had an opportunity to discuss this within the convener's group. From the experience of the world tour, are there particular types of issues that lend themselves to citizens' panels? In a sense, how do those relate to budgetary issues, where obviously the debates that we have in here very often are a great idea, but how are you going to pay for it? It's fair to say that, for example, in Ireland the key initial citizens panel was focused on the issue of the legalisation of abortion in Ireland. It was fascinating to meet many of the hundreds who had participated and who had gone on quite a journey because there was a fact-based secretariat that underpinned everybody's opinion and there were no bad opinions but it underpinned that and led to a significant change in subsequent recommendations, so not necessarily a budgetary consideration in that instance. In Paris it was about issues relating to the rental sector and to green spaces in the city, in Dublin and in Brussels, different again because it was underpinning the various committees that were reporting. What we are recommending in here is, we've made recommendations to the Government, we've had very constructive discussions with the Minister, of course there are budgetary concerns, it can cost £1 million to £2 million to host a full citizens panel of maybe a hundred people sustained over time, but the report was on to recommend what can Parliament do and Parliament we think has a role to take forward in extending deliberative democracy and we are recommending within budgets that already exist pilots to take place in the balance of this session, one on a issue of post-legislative scrutiny and one on an issue of interest that a people's panel of about 20 to 30 people could constructively report and then come back to the lead committee with their evidence to take forward. We wouldn't want to involve politicians in that panel, we'd want to have it again randomly drawn from the public but we believe that that will through those pilots give this Parliament a real sense of how this can work and I believe and I'm convinced such that we would seek to try and embed that into parliamentary life in the parliaments going forward. There are lots of other issues but I think I'm out of time actually. I can give you some more time. Michelle Thompson? A comment on the post-legislative scrutiny, I mean it's something that we're still struggling with within the Parliament and part of that is for good reasons because of the complexity and the multiple variables where decisions are made about policies where you've got reserved and devolved powers and so on. How much deeper did you look at the type of post-legislative scrutiny that might be appropriate for citizens assembly? I don't think we went through all the different issues. What I can say is that the packed team within the Parliament that has been established and which is really very experienced now and very effective has an anticipation of the Parliament embracing the principle this afternoon come forward with two suggestions which went to the convener's group who have embraced one of those suggestions as being the subject that a pilot on this issue might take for, which is to do, I haven't got the actual provision in front of me, but a previous climate change legislation where they think a piece of post-legislative scrutiny would be very effective. I will try and draw things to a conclusion. There are lots of other recommendations within the report that I know are going to be brought out in the summary later on, particularly some relating to the Presiding Officer's role and responsibilities as well, which we, fools rush in, were angels fear to tread. We were slightly more reluctant to be too prescriptive on all of that, but I want really, in my final moments, just to try and, as someone who you can, I think might imagine, is a sceptic potentially of some of these kind of initiatives and devours, to say that I think we genuinely saw something that would allow Scotland to evolve its own because all these different models were quite distinct, so it's not that we're suggesting we embrace one. It's not that we're suggesting a legislative route because I think what we might want in Scotland could evolve through our own experience. So let's, as a Parliament, embrace the principle of all of this, have pilots and then work to see what the most effective way of involving people in Scotland in the life of our democracy would be. So many more people than ever before, I think, wish to have that opportunity, and I hope that we can, this afternoon, begin the process of allowing that to happen. Thank you, Mr Carlaw, and I now call on Minister George Adam. Thank you, Presiding Officer, and I thank Jackson Carlaw for an excellent speech there. The tone and what we're all trying to achieve here was summed up perfectly by Mr Carlaw there as well, and he doesn't need to sell the idea to me because I believe that he's given all the examples of why it's a good thing for us to go forward. It will be a way of us being able to deal with the many challenges and difficulties and decisions that we have to make and also, at the same time, find out exactly what the public, the people we serve, what they actually want from us as well, with at the end of course Parliament making the decisions as we go forward. I'd like to commend the committee and the participation in communities team for the thorough work that they have undertaken to produce this report and its recommendations. Mark is an important milestone, as Jackson Carlaw has said for the Scottish Parliament, and he looks at how it will meaningfully and practically involve the public in its work. I commend the approach that the committee has taken to this public participation inquiry, and particularly as Mr Carlaw took us through his world tour. I obviously have been in the wrong committees when I was a bike bencher, and I've got the wrong job now because apparently they have tour t-shirts and tour jackets to sell as well as this idea of public participation. However, I think that all the stuff that came from the committee were considered balanced and produced a timeline of viable next steps. I'm pleased to see that the report and its recommendations have also been framed with the longer term view in mind. The core principles outlined by the committee plays transparency, accountability and inclusivity at the centre of their vision for the Parliament's move towards a more participatory system, and that's easy for me to say, Presiding Officer. That is an important step in improving our democratic infrastructure. I welcome the committee's proposal to work towards establishing the use of more citizens' panels and a good practice model and accountability framework for use across the Parliament's scrutiny work. Putting in place the standards, values and practices to guarantee high-quality participation is something that the Scottish Government is also committed to. The Scottish Government's vision for public participation is that people can be involved in the decisions that affect them, making Scotland a more inclusive, sustainable and successful place. In our response to the IPDD expert working group report, we outlined our intention to deliver that. We have delivered a number of deliberative engagements, probably the most well-known of our two citizens' assemblies, and we routinely run small-scale participatory engagements. For example, we ran a citizens' duty on the proposed use of a risk protection model for Covid-19 that draws on health data. A citizens' duty works in a similar way to the people's panel, and that helped us to understand how people in Scotland view the ethics of using models like that. The in-depth process of learning and deliberation that took place for the citizens' duty gave us a clear understanding of what the public do and do not find acceptable. That shows how— Yes, no problem. I'm very grateful to George Adam for giving me on that point. We heard from Jackson Carlaw the challenge that exists between the understanding of the separation between Parliament and Government. Do you see a potential flashpoint if the Government is participating with citizens' assemblies or juries and the Parliament is doing the same thing as to an understanding in the public regime about what they're answering and how they're trying to help? I keep that on board. The Government obviously has to engage with the public to understand what the public is going on, but I do understand that there could be some form of confusion. Maybe it's something that, as we move forward with the model, I'm willing to find a way that we can all work in a way that will make sure that we just get the job done rather than us all doing the same thing at the one time. In these challenging times, with budgetary constraints, it's probably a way to think wiser with everything that we've got. However, that all shows with the citizens' jury how valuable the public considers evidence-based responses when tackling complex issues or taking difficult decisions. As you will know, dealing with complex issues and difficult decisions have always been a part of the work of the Government and are increasingly featured today. Jackson Carlaw brought up a perfect example of how in Ireland they dealt with the abortion issue and managed to have that discussion here. There are various other issues that are happening in this Parliament at this time that we maybe look at how we deal with that by using these mechanisms as well. What will be important to the success of the Parliament's work here will be ensuring that those who are furthest from Government and seldom heard voices are being listened to. That work is trauma-informed. One of the things that I always bring up with my officials is the fact that I don't want to see the usual faces turning up. Those of us that have been councillors in the past will have been involved in many of those types of smaller attempts at engagement with the public, and you'll be aware that, in a lot of cases, it was the same people all the time. For me, it's trying to get people from all walks of life. Where is the young man or woman from Ferguson Park? Where is the young man or woman from the east end of Glasgow? Where are the people where we can make sure that we've got everyone from all walks of life and we can actually engage? I thank the minister for taking an intervention. He described what individuals said about being seldom heard. Does he agree that sometimes it's easy to ignore that it's not that they're seldom heard and that we've got a responsibility to make it easy for them to come to us, be that Government or Parliament? I totally agree what Ruth Maguire said with regards to we need to find a way to make it easier for them to contact us and to take away. There is always the intimidation of the Parliament itself or MSPs or the elected officials, but we need to make it ourselves as an institution, as a Government and as individuals, more approachable for the public as well. I note that the report outlines barriers to participation that the committee will suggest that Parliament considers, and I will strongly encourage that as an area proactively we pursue. Listening to seldom heard voices is fundamental if we want to ensure that decisions we make are fairer and better meet the needs of the people we serve. From the Scottish Government's experience, it's not just about the big policy issues or about how one method of participation versus another. It's about how we in all of our roles are considering who is most affected by the policies and the services that we are designing and finding the best way to ensure that their voices are included from the very beginning. I'm new to all of this and I'm really just following the debate for the first time in the chamber. I've sticking around for it and it's very interesting. Mr Carlaw was talking to people's panels. The Government is talking about citizens' juries, but lived experience isn't necessarily across a representative section of society. By definition, there is a specific cohort that is very easy to ignore on social security and on addiction issues. They are vital that we engage with the lived experience. Do we have a lived experience that fits in with people's panels and citizens' juries? Is that a third player? I thank Mr Doris for sticking around for this debate, but he is very accurate. He hits a nail right in the head as to why we should be making sure that everything is accessible to everyone. My officials would tell me that I am constantly challenging them to say who is coming, who are we engaging with, who are we talking with and what is the benefit and how they can help. The whole idea is to make sure that those individuals that we are talking about get the empowerment of being involved in the democratic process. I think that that helps with many other discussions that Mr Doris and I have had about people who are engaging with us in elections and everything else, because they see a reason for getting involved in the process. It occurs to me to suggest to the minister and to Mr Doris that, although the criteria for drawing people to participate would be random, the basis of that criteria can be determined if a specific issue was the one in which a particular panel was held, where it was felt that that would be fundamentally important to the consideration. Some issues will be true in others, not necessarily. The point is that you do not want the politicians to select the individuals who would participate, but for that to be genuinely a random representation. It can be an informed representation if the issue is so determined. I agree with that as well with the fact that we have to ensure that some of those issues will be very specific and we will expect that they will actually affect a certain cohort and we need to make sure that we get the best value possible from all the citizens assemblies or, in the governance case, juries, which, just for clarity, are effectively the same thing, the citizens panels or the citizens jury. It is also important to ensure that participants' expenses and time are paid so that no-one faces financial barriers to get involved. To this end, officials in the Scottish Government are finalising guidance on participant payment. I welcome the committee's view and the methods used for this work should be proportionate to the topic. That is an approach that the Scottish Government is advocating for. I also welcome the principles and aims that are outlined by the committee, which will enable people to be involved in the work of Parliament, the vision that we all share with the committee. It is important that we all take on the task of supporting a fairer, more successful and innovative democracy. The Scottish Government will seek to support the committee where it is helpful as it moves forward with its plans. The evidence is there for us to know that this is the path that we should be actively following. With that, I look forward to hearing the views of others today as the committee starts to lay the foundations on creating this new exciting model for democracy in our Parliament. As a relatively new member of the Citizen, Participation and Public Petitions Committee, I missed out on the world tour. I start by thanking all those who participated in the committee's public participation inquiry, with a particular thanks to the 19 individuals who worked closely together over two weekends and three remote online sessions in October and November of 2022. I thank them for their thoughtful and helpful contributions and the recommendations that they made to Parliament. A number of those recommendations regard the future use of deliberative democracy, for which I commend the panel. Any steps that this Parliament can take to promote greater public participation and amplify diverse views from communities across all parts of Scotland should be encouraged. The reality is that this Parliament and the MSPs within it hear from a limited cross-section of the population, usually those who are in the wider Holyrood bubble. Those people, interest groups and campaign groups understand how the system works and how to bear influence on the political process through responding to consultations, media campaigns and engaging directly with MSPs. It does not mean that those people should not have a voice, but often it is the views of the few that are seen as representative views of the public. In many cases, the views of the few may not be the views of the wider public. Furthermore, political parties often seek out those whose views align with their own in order to push their own political agendas as representative of the general public. You do not have to look too far back within this Parliament to find examples of recent bills or parts thereof that have been passed into legislation that are completely out of step with the views of the general public or the interests of a particular community. The Parliament needs to hear from those people who are happy to. He mentions community there. I wonder if he agrees with one of the panel's recommendations or comments that community engagement by MSPs does not exclude people who are out with community groups. Sometimes who appear to be community leaders do not represent the whole of their community. The community in the widest possible sense. I think that we have often engaged with community councils for example. Although they do a fantastic job in many cases, it is often the same community leaders that are in many different interactions with elected officials and others. The point of this is to widen participation beyond leadership at every single level. I think that that has to be the focus, so that Parliament hears from the people we do not normally hear from. If we cannot hear from them, we need to hear from the people who are representative of their views. The process and outcomes from establishing the citizens panel have warranted the Parliament to take a closer look at the widening use of citizen panels. The committee's recommendation for the Parliament to run two further panels, one on an existing piece of legislation and one on a current topic of interest should be adopted. If they are deemed to be of value, a model for further use should be rolled out for the next parliamentary term. Link to the previous point about ensuring that the Parliament hears from and considers as wide a range of representative views as possible, it is critical to widen community engagement and raise awareness of the Scottish Parliament. In a previous committee visit, I found that there was confusion over the role of committees, Parliament and Government, and in some cases mistrust. As the Parliament enters its 25th year, that has to change. In response to the recommendations made by the panel in this area, I share the views of the committee that more can and should be done by Parliament to strengthen and widen its engagement with the public whilst acknowledging the work that the Parliament is currently doing in this area and some of the clear steps forward that it has taken over the last few years. In terms of highlighting some of the specific recommendations from the panel, I would like to focus on firstly embedding the process of parliamentary democracy in schools. If the curriculum can be strengthened to do this, that would be a positive step. However, this has to be done with a focus on citizens participation and the role of Parliament and not an attempt to push certain political views. I am very grateful that Maurice Golden gave way on that point. Does he feel that the knowledge and experience that our young people had in the first two or three sessions across Scotland and their interaction with the Parliament is perhaps better than the interactions that have happened now? I am not just meaning because of the cause of Covid. There are more challenges in travel costs and overnight costs for our young people even to visit this place, which is raised with me by a lot of schools. Maurice Golden? I think that we are seeing it as far more challenging, particularly for certain schools of not just having the teachers but the volunteers that might be required and the costs associated with that. I was almost at school in 1999, so I do not have lived the experience of this, Mr Whitfield, but I think that we could look at how we as a Parliament engage more with our pupils and allow more understanding and better access. Ruth Maguire? I appreciate Maurice Golden taking an intervention. It was the one area of the report that made me raise my eyebrow a little bit, because I wondered if children had said that they needed more education on the Parliament. Certainly, my experience in going out to schools is that, often, they know how things work a lot better than many intelligent adults within my community because they are looking at democracy in the round and how the Parliament works. I think that that is a fair challenge, but I also think that there is more that we can do in terms of allowing access among our young people. Separately, we are looking at how we work more closely with the youth Parliament, for example, but, again, back to that leadership point that John Mason raised earlier, we need to be cautious about that being representative of all young people's views. I should declare an interest as a former modern studies teacher. Some of the issues in secondary schools are that, in some schools—not in my constituency, I hasten to add—if that citizenship has passed to the modern studies department now, if critical for excellence means anything, citizenship is a whole school endeavour. It certainly is in primary school, but it must also be in secondary schools. What we do is focus that on those young people who self-select and take modern studies as a whole school, whole community endeavour. It is almost the same point that those people who want to be politicians are the first people that we should not allow to become politicians. That kind of self-selecting is a general thrust of this debate. It is about widening it beyond those who are really interested in modern studies. Turning to the specific recommendations made by the panel regarding changes to how Parliament works and, specifically, recommendation 13 regarding the answering of questions, I have a lot of sympathy and strongly agree with the frustrations that are posed by ministers failing or refusing to give straight answers to straight questions. Happy to. John Mason. I thank the member for giving way. It is the problem not sometimes with the question as well, but it is not a straight question and it is a trap. There are two sides to every coin, but I can attest that, where there is a simple yes or no answer, that often does suffice. If you look at the official report, you see that I have tried that on numerous occasions unsuccessfully in my ad in terms of that response. The panel has suggested on that, giving the Parliament's Presiding Officer more power to make sure that Scottish Government ministers give adequate answers to questions. Although the committee noted that that could make the Presiding Officer's job more difficult and more political, I believe that there should be a way to improve the current situation and agree with the committee that the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee should consider ways in which the Presiding Officer might be given the power to decide that a question has not adequately been answered. It is interesting that, in the Irish Parliament, the comcomeral of the speaker, there has this discretion. The form of words that is used is for the Presiding Officer to say to the minister that it is perhaps the case that they have been a little let down by their civil servants in the comprehensive nature of the response that they have given and that they might like to add to the response that they have just given a little further. In fact, the existence of that power has meant that it has never had to be used. I think that that is quite interesting. It is not necessarily that a Presiding Officer would require to intervene, but the knowledge that the Presiding Officer could intervene has led there to sharper and more focused answers from ministers. I thank the member for that helpful contribution. In terms of respect, it should be customary practice for members, and particularly ministers, to accept at least one intervention. If not, we should change the term from debate to the reading of speeches, and in due course, we will probably end up replaced by AI at some point. I understand where he is coming from with regard to debate. There is also the drama of Parliament. I, for one, tend to always take interventions. I think that I took about half a dozen there. On the whole, there is also the drama of Parliament itself. As one of your colleagues, Mr Kerr, you just said, it is not a quiet place. It is a place that, obviously, there will be times when I will be doing a speech. One of your colleagues that we are trying to get in, I will let them in. Maybe not at that point, but I will let them in later on. There is also the fact that the Parliament and debate are a living-flowing thing that we are involved in. It is not just a case of, you must take one, you must take two. There is the actual flow of the debate itself. Speaking of the flow of the debate, I appreciate that Mr Gown has been extremely generous in taking so many interventions, but I would urge that he now focus on bringing his interesting remarks to us. I noted the power of the Presiding Officer there. No, I completely agree, and I appreciate that there are short debates. That is why I was suggesting one intervention, because it is incredibly frustrating when ministers in particular, but members more generally, do not offer at least one intervention or take one intervention, not all of them, because I think that that is the purpose of this chamber. The response of the committee to the recommendations of the citizens panel in regard to embedding public participation in the work of Parliament are an excellent starting point and need further explored. Yes, there will be constraints and challenges in how Parliament can do, particularly around costs, but, as an area develops over the months and years to come, we should all engage with it and approach it with an open mind. I am very grateful to the Deputy Presiding Officer. I think that it speaks to the power of Maurice Golden's speech that he had so many interventions. Actually, in debate, it is about analysing points and opinions that we can show the people of Scotland that we are testing the Government. We are testing an idea, and that is the fundamental principle of why this Parliament is here. It is a people's Parliament to hold the Scottish Government to account for the people of Scotland. Can I compliment the Citizens' Participation and Public Petitions Committee very much on the publication of this report and, more importantly, to those citizens who took part in it? I think that what we have heard today is the interesting dichotomy between the desire to participate and the power that the Parliament wants to give citizens to participate. We have cross-party groups here in Parliament. We have the Government, as the Minister pointed out, continually seeking the public opinion and views. But what we have here embedded is, I believe, a vehicle that will allow citizens to genuinely participate before the questions, in essence, come for the committees to be decided. We have heard about the view that we get the usual culprits coming. I think this offers much more than that because we are considering the process of a random group of our citizens to be brought together to solve questions that we cannot solve, to remove the politics from some of these questions. Because of the representative nature of it, it is not about them giving the same evidence to a different committee on the same question. It is about genuinely going to them and saying, please help us with this problem, because we cannot do it. Perhaps we should not do it, and then taking their conclusions and doing what we do very well here through committees and indeed through this chamber to analyse and consider that and say, how can we implement it and how will it work? I have to, unfortunately, with the consent of the Deputy Presiding Officer, take off my party political hat one moment to deal with page 3 of the report, where there are a number of suggestions that are levelled towards the committee that I have the privilege to convene. I can assure, in one sense, speaking to the Members across the lower end of this chamber, but actually, more importantly, speaking to those citizens that took part and raised this, we will be considering it at committee, and we will, as Jackson Carlaw so rightly pointed out, refer back to you and explain what our decision is and why it is on a number of points. And the second one with regard to the Presiding Officer, fascinating to first follow Maurice Golding on that, and indeed the intervention from Jackson Carlaw about what happens elsewhere. The Deputy Presiding Officer sits where they do because we have chosen them, as the Members of this Chamber, to not referee our debates, but to facilitate them and to burden them with an evidential decision on whether or not something has or has not been answered, with the sparklingly light evidence that they will listen in a very well-versed question, or indeed, should I say, maybe a potentially poorly-versed answer, I think needs to be considered with a great deal of scepticism, not because of the disappointment that is shared across two thirds of this House when questions aren't answered, but because I think to alter the view and the role of the person who sits in that chair is dangerous. I thank the Member for giving way. I think it's an interesting point and something that I've picked up on, but my question is, is how many times have we seen in this Parliament a Minister stand up and answer the question they want to answer, not the one that's been asked? And that's, I think, the crux of it, not necessarily the depth of the answer, but would you not agree it'd be useful for the Presiding Officer to instruct the Minister to answer the question that they've been asked, which has been through the chamber desk in most cases anyway? Martin Whitfield. With consent of this, Presiding Officer, I'm happy to take the second intervention and then try to answer the question. Ruth Bwigwar. I'm grateful to Martin Whitfield for taking my intervention. I appreciated what you were saying there about the Presiding Officer intervening on the evidence or lack of that she would have to go on that. I wonder as well if there's a bit about personal responsibility. Each individual member is responsible for their contribution. Asking someone else to come in and referee to use your term doesn't really sit right. Martin Whitfield. We heard earlier the concept of two sides of the same coin, but what I think we've seen in both of those interventions is perhaps both ends of a rainbow, which is the personal responsibility that every member has an MSP here and indeed a subsequent additional responsibility is as Minister or indeed Cabinet Secretary or indeed First Minister to address the answers that they're given, but also to answer Edward Mountain's intervention. Yes, there is a frustration about it, but it's genuinely a frustration that I think anyone who seeks answers, even sometimes from their own primary school teachers, gets a frustration that the primary school teacher won't answer the question they think they're asking. They're answering a different question, and I do think it is worth highlighting the comment in the report, which refers members again to the general conduct expected of MSPs and the fact that members must treat the individuals with courtesy and respect, and one of that group is, of course, MSPs. It does then raise the interesting element of the responsibility as a member of the Scottish Parliament with the additional responsibilities of being a Minister or indeed a Cabinet Secretary and who answers those responsibilities when people feel that they have strayed. I'll go no further on that other than to return to reassure those people, those citizens that put this in, that the committee will be looking at it, putting back my party political hat, and with time where it is, I did want to talk about a definition of deliberate democracy, and I hope that during this debate we can actually identify what we mean by deliberate democracy rather than simple contributions to this Parliament and indeed debates. I wanted to make reference following on from a number of interventions, particularly from Bob Doris and Ruth Maguire about page 6, which deals with the themes that emerged in particular that it is people from the disadvantaged backgrounds that often don't feel they are engaging with the Scottish Parliament is worthwhile. That's a frightening conclusion to come to, that there are people who are seeking to engage but see no worth in doing it. I think of so many of the comments, very, very powerful comments that are contained in this report, that one moved me, that someone says, I can't be bothered because nothing will happen. I think that's a poor, poor reflection, a one that we must strive and indeed there are views. Brian Whittle. I'm very grateful for Martin Whittle for giving me. It's really important that there's an avenue and a route to be able to give evidence to this Parliament or to affect this Parliament that perhaps many of our citizens currently can't see. Martin Whittle. I think that speaks to what I was speaking about earlier, about the concept of the Citizens' Assembly or the jury being asked a specific problem or set a legislative review. There is also a requirement for this Parliament and the committees in the chamber to reach out, to seek lived experience when it's needed, to seek out the experts and not the usual suspects. I think that the current Petitions Committee has to be thanked for the fact that they appear to reach out far more to a wider group throughout petitions and others than perhaps has happened in the past, and we must emulate that. In conclusion, I did want to concentrate a part of my talk on theme 6, because, along with Ruth Maguire, I'm slightly disappointed in the level of urgency that this has been given, and I think we've rehearsed to some extent where we sit within our schools and the curriculum and the access to this place. But one of the things that flows from this is whether or not consideration that one of the panels should perhaps be a young person's panel made up of a random section that crossreflects the experiences when we have the appropriate question to ask them, and if a panel was brought together and they were asked how important is it for young people to take part in the Parliament, I am going to hazard a guess that their response would be incredibly high. It's very important. Please listen to us. So, on that point, I conclude. Thank you for your patience, Deputy Presiding Officer. Thank you, Mr Whitfield. We now move to the open debate and I call John Mason to be followed by Edward Mountain. Mr Mason. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer, and thanks also to the committee and to the assistance panel for their deliberations and input. I have to say that I find this a really interesting topic, and in particular how we balance on the one hand being a parliamentary democracy with elections and all the complications that that system brings, while on the other hand having and benefiting from panels or groups who might be more quote representative in one sense but who are not elected. I note the panel's recommendations and I also note that the committee disagreed with some of them, and I would like to go through the themes and comment on some of these in the same way that the committee did. First theme is institutionalising deliberative democracy, and I note that the committee did not agree with legislating for this, and I would tend to agree with them on that point. However, other recommendations like number nine, building cross-party support for deliberative democracy, which is still to be defined, is absolutely fine, and we can endorse that. Moving on to theme two, growing community engagement, and in general, the comments of both the panel and the committee are good, and we do need to hear from a wide range of people, including experts on a subject and those with lived experience. However, of course, both of those are often minorities within society, and the wider public may not have strong views on the issue at all. So I think there will be times and subjects when we as politicians need to focus on important issues even though, and perhaps because, the public is not engaged. On recommendation five, engagement by MSPs must not exclude people who are out with community groups, and I think this is an important point, as I think we touched on earlier. Not every community group is representative of its community. For example, I am generally a fan of community councils, which are the most grass-roots democratically elected organisations that we have, but some are made up entirely of retired people with no one of working age, let alone young people at all. Thirdly, raising awareness of Parliament and recommendation three in that regard. I have to say that I do think that good efforts have been made on that, but I accept that that has had mixed success. It is the case, I think, always that some people are very satisfied when we do a little for them, either individually or as a Parliament, while others are very dissatisfied, however much we do for them. Recommendation 15 was interesting in the idea of highlighting Parliament's successes, but I have to accept that some people do not want this to happen, they do not want Parliament's successes to be highlighted, they want to run Parliament down and emphasise its weaknesses. I think that the media does have a part to play in this, and it says—one of the phrases from the panel is, we should use media outlets, but I think that using media outlets is easier said than done. Both the media and it seems many of the public are more focused on the dramatic side of Hollywood and the same happens at Westminster, with people turning up and watching FMQs, whereas the committee work is often less well attended by the public or featured in the media but is actually more important. Recommendation 16 on a general information campaign is certainly well-meaning, but I think that that is exactly what a lot of Parliament staff have been working on for a number of years and, again, with limited success. Theme 5, bringing Parliament to the people, and Recommendation 11, with the idea of moving the whole Parliament round Scotland, might be impractical, and I think that the committee did not support that recommendation, but I would slightly disagree with the committee on the idea of Parliament days, linked perhaps to committee visits, as happened in the past. I have taken part in a number of those, and I have to say that I felt that some were very good. For example, one was in Hoik, and I think that that was mainly while Tricia Marwick was the Presiding Officer. And from memory on that occasion in Hoik, we had a big reception on the Sunday evening and met many, many people across a section of local society. And then on the Monday, the Finance Committee went on to have its meetings while a Presiding Officer had a separate programme. So I did think that that kind of thing can be worthwhile, and so I would... Yes, absolutely. Jackson Carlaw. I too participated in some of these Parliament days, but apparently a lot of the work that was done afterwards to establish what the value of that had been seen to be, it was felt that they had kind of landed, done their thing and gone away again, and that there was no actually lasting benefit. And that the types of engagement that we should be seeking to take from the Parliament out into communities should be ones that are designed to leave something that is going to be more of a legacy in terms of that appreciation of the Parliament itself. John Mason. I think it's possibly both and, because I think sometimes the committees I'm on, and I'm going with the economy committee to Aberdeen on a specific issue a week on Monday. But on other occasions it's just the fact that we're there means a lot to the local community, and I remember a visit we had to Islay looking at isolation, and the people there I picked up just really appreciated the fact that the committee had taken the effort, which they know about more than we do, to go. I mean, I've been on committee visits to Orkney or Broth, Nairn, Islay, Largs, Twice, Hoik, Pitlochry, Lochaber and more. But I would have to say as well, I don't think we should just go to attractive rural locations, and I believe that the greater Glasgow area has not been visited so often by Parliament committees. The cost of travelling to Parliament is certainly a challenge for some, as Martin Whitfield was saying, and I'm keen that schools both from further away and from less well off areas should be able to come. So I do think we need to keep an eye on which schools are visiting and ensure it is not only those that are closer and better off. Theme 7 is strengthening the trust in Parliament and the idea which we have touched on already in recommendation 13 that compelling Government ministers to give answers to all the questions that they are presented with is an intriguing concept. I actually think that all oral questions are generally answered, but maybe they are not answered in the way that the opposition or the public would want. However, I do think, again, that if the Presiding Officer was to assess all the answers, I think that she should also be assessing all the questions for geniw in this, and not allowing questions which are trick or trap questions. So, like the committee, I agree that this is probably not feasible. Recommendation 4. Does the member agree that any changes to Parliament and its structures and the structures of debate need to be done in the round, so not reflective of the current session, but reflective of the future of this Parliament and the future political make-up, whatever that may be? I agree that we should take a longer-term view. I think that many of us find that difficult with the election only two and a half years ahead. However, we should be taking and looking at this. To give respect to people like Jackson Carlaw and Martin Whitfield, I think that some members here are very good at taking a longer-term view. Recommendation 14 about the idea of the public asking questions in the chamber. To some extent, we have tried that kind of thing with committees. For example, on the Covid committee and the finance committee recently in LARGs, we did see questions being brought to the committee and then the committee follows on by asking these same questions. However, it did seem to me that sometimes we are asking questions for the sake of it and on issues that we have already looked at in depth. Again, I get constituents coming in demanding that I ask a minister if we have time, yes? If he does not mind me saying perhaps that is missing the point because perhaps we are too ready to have concluded what the answer is without lists and allowing people to make their voices heard, would he concede that? I do concede that, although there are always dangers and there are always two sides to these things. On the Covid committee, for example, we felt that airing certain questions, like challenging the science on vaccines, might not be helpful to anyone. There has to be a bit of freedom, but I accept that we are doing slightly different things here between the chamber and the committees. The committees have more opportunity to engage. As I was going to say, I get constituents coming in demanding that I ask a minister or the First Minister a whole range of questions ranging from why their bus was late to why their hospital operation has been postponed. My usual response is to suggest that we take such points up with the bus company or the health board as appropriate and nine times out of 10 we get a better answer going that way. I realise that some MSPs raise individual patients' cases in the chamber, but I question whether that is appropriate if they have not already been to the health board. Overall, I commend the panel and committee for the work on that. I absolutely agree that we can improve things that we do as a Parliament and I am particularly keen that we get out and about around the country and engage with the general public where they actually live and work. It is clear to me that it has been appreciated when we travel further from Edinburgh. However, I think that we need to keep an eye on the bigger picture, keeping a balance between those who are democratically elected and involving panels or assemblies selected at random. Scotland is a relatively small country, and we should be able to keep things simple. We need to be wary of multiplying commissions, panels and other bodies that make the landscape even more complicated. Holyrood and MSPs are much more accessible than Westminster and MPs, and we should aim to build on that strength. I would like to thank the committee for their excellent report. Public participation in this Parliament is absolutely vital. As you go further away from Edinburgh, where this Parliament sits, you get asked more and more questions. As you go up to the very north of the Highlands, they will know their local MSPs, but they know little about the other MSPs in the Parliament who they feel outnumber their local MSPs, and they feel that people who do not have their life experience in remote areas know as much as they should do. Highlanders and islanders, I think, need this public participation, and they need to be confirmed that it is not a bias towards what happens in the central belt when decisions are made. They also need to know how to engage with the Parliament. As John Mason has made the point, Presiding Officer, a lot of constituents come into your office and ask you lots of questions, but they do not know how to engage with the Parliament, how to engage with the committees. Some of them will know how to write to their MSPs, and we are usually the last protocol in very difficult circumstances, but they do not know how to engage, for example, on the power lines that are coming from north to south. They do not know which committee to get involved with. They do not know how to do that, and we need to rectify that. Now, when it came to the citizen's participation part of this report, I have to admit that I was slightly sceptical, and I poured over the report, and I thought it was actually quite interesting for me to see the recommendations of the committee and those people who had taken part in the panels that the committee had set up, and I became swayed by it, and that is why, putting on my hat very briefly as the convener of the next zero energy and transport committee, we are delighted to be able to have bid for, and I think being accepted by the convener's group, to be the first committee to have a panel to do some post-legislative scrutiny on the climate act of 2009, and I think it's really important, and I think it will be an important way for the committee to hear what people think about this crucial, crucial subject. Now, taking my hat off, then, having made that announcement, which I'll probably get in trouble for somewhere along the line, Presiding Officer, I do think that it's important that when that panel is formed, and when they do this post-legislative scrutiny, it has made clear to them what their remit is, and how far they can actually go with their recommendations, because there's no point asking them to do something, and then giving them a story which they can take part in, but then not allow them to fulfil the role they've got. So, I think there's a careful balance, and I'm minded, and I hear what I think Jackson Carlaw said about MSPs taking part in that panel, but sometimes an MSP there just to say there is an issue with what your recommendation would allow that report, and the report back from the panel, to know how the MSPs can use it. But I think there's a real need when we're setting up those panels, as was made clear in the report, is to get the right balance of people on it, and to make sure that they've got the right experience. And, as plenty of people said, it's not the same vociferous characters that you meet on the subjects in your constituency when you talk about them. They don't always represent the views of every person in the constituency, and I would like to see those people bought in, the other people bought in, and we need to ensure them, and they need to see the outcomes of the reports that they produce. And I do like the idea that positive action needs to be reported within nine months, because after that period of time, I fear people will feel nothing's happened. So, the earlier we can get back to them once they've produced a report on what they've done, I think it's great. Now, turning to the point, and I may differ strangely from Martin Whitfield on this, about the powers to the presiding officer. I am taken by the fact that, as a backbencher, it is very difficult to get an answer in this Parliament. I'm taken by the fact also that Jackson Carlaw has suggested that by having the power, but not necessarily using it, may be sufficient. But it is frustrating, not just for us, it is frustrating for people who watch the events in this chamber. And how many of us have been told, well, you never got an answer. They talked about something completely different to what you asked them about, and it's unhelpful, in my mind, because it gives the wrong message about this Parliament. The message this Parliament should be giving is that we're considering every single option and that they're being discounted for good reasons. So, I do believe, Presiding Officer, that the Presiding Officer should have more power. And I would just say on that also, that the presiding officers have made a decision to reduce the length of answers to some questions. That's right, because if you can't get an answer in a minute, you're not going to get an answer in five minutes. And that means that backbenchers don't get to ask the questions, and people get frustrated that their MSPs that they've elected are not getting the answers. Yes, I will, of course, give way to Mr Brown. Can I thank Edward Mountain for taking intervention, just to say that I completely disagree with him on the point about, Presiding Officer, being the arbiter of answers, and on the idea of treating different classes of MSPs in terms of whether they're obliged to do an intervention or not. I just think that that's wrong. On the issues that are more supportive of, in relation to some of the public participation, there's a concern over a longer period, maybe 40 years and across all parties, that MSPs, elected members and Governments are much less accountable because so much has been hived off to other bodies, you know, commissions or outsourced and so on, so the accountability is not there anymore. Does he think that that might possibly counterintuitively contribute to that less accountability? And just on Jackson Carlaw's point, if it's going to cost as much as it is, how does that square with what many of us agree is the proliferation of commissioners within the Parliament? The two things you can do or do with each other. Edward Mountain. And thank Mr Brown for that question. I'm not suggesting that we have lots more commissioners. I actually think we've got probably enough commissioners. As far as the long-term situation in this Parliament and diluting it, nowhere don't, because ultimately at the end of the day, the decision whether to incorporate what has been decided at those citizens' panels comes down to the MSPs, and the MSPs have to answer to that panel and they should answer to that panel why they are not taking an idea forward or why they are taking an idea forward. And I'm sorry I can't sway you on the presiding officer. I think that, you know, there are definitely different views around the Chamber and I suspect the views may differ from whether you're in Government or your party's in Government or your party's not in Government. But presiding officer, just moving on, I think that one of the issues was the code of conduct that was mentioned. I absolutely believe that should run with the current committee at the moment. I believe having sat on that committee, actually being judged by your peers and answerable to your peers on your behaviour, they are much harsher than perhaps anyone else would be, and I think it's right that we answer to our peers. Some of the other issues I picked up very briefly, if I may, presiding officer, is a public register of interests where the public can say we are interested in this and be notified by the Parliament that a subject is coming up. I think it's really, really important and I think it will help people across Scotland understand and feed into the process. I think the point that John Mason has made, the point that John Mason has made about external visits, I absolutely agree, and as the REC committee, as you will know, went out as a committee and held a committee meeting in Orkney and a subsequent meeting and I think we went down to Gallus Shields and did a meeting down there and I think that's really important because I think that's engaging with people so the committee can have a prior meeting where people are allowed to contribute and participate in it and then hold the more formal part of the meeting afterwards and I think we should do more of that and it's something that I've not done in this session but I was pleased to do it in the last one. Finally, presiding officer, just mentioning on the education of children as far as how the Parliament works, I think that's really, really important. Now it is very easy for schools in Edinburgh and Glasgow to pop across here to the Parliament and make use of the excellent facilities that we've got. When it comes to the Highlands, I think that it becomes more difficult. I've certainly struggled to get the schools to come down from Skye and from Wick and Cadeness just because of the length of travel and the costs of doing it, so they don't understand how the Parliament works and we have an excellent service here so I don't know if that service travels out to schools which might be an option to do it or whether we make sure it's part of the curriculum but everyone needs to know. Democracy isn't just putting a cross in a box every five years. The mandate given to political parties once the votes are counted is substantial but the folk we represent, for them to feel they have trust in our institution and a stake in the decisions that we take, election campaigns and polling days should not be the end of our interactions with citizens on policy. With all due respect, politicians and civil servants certainly do not have the monopoly on wisdom and despite some real effort we can't claim to be an especially diverse bunch reflective of our nation, particularly in terms of class and race. The ideas and policies put in manifestos as good or bad as they may be, wherever or whoever they're coming from, always need a lot of further work within Parliament. They need input from and dialogue with a wide range of people and organisations to realise their good intentions and improve things for all the citizens that we serve. And no matter how much we might wish it, legislation and guidance that we pass in here are not always in themselves enough to make the changes that we wish to see. We have to understand better how and where the laws that we've passed have made a difference or not. Have there been any unintended consequences or are there gaps that need to be addressed? Public participation in post-legislative scrutiny would be incredibly valuable in this regard. I want to congratulate the citizens panel, the citizens participation in public petitions committee, the members and the Scottish parliamentary staff, who so ably supported them for the excellent work that they've done on embedding public participation in the work of the Parliament. From the outset, I agree with the committee's recommendation that the Parliament establish two further citizens panels or people's panels. In the current parliamentary session, I think that it's right that we work towards making the use of such panels regular committee scrutiny from session 7 onwards. In commending their work, I'd wish to make special mention of the care and attention that was given to ensuring that the inquiry was accessible and that there were different ways for people to take part. As well as the main online platform, the PAC team and the Parliament's education team provided support and resources to partners and communities to gather a range of views. I have personal experience of the excellent and creative work that those teams do to ensure that voices that we can find easy to ignore or exclude can be central to committee work in areas that affect them. In this instance, that work meant that the committee received additional contributions from people with learning difficulties and autism via two discussions with the Learning Disabilities Assembly, the views of young people in collaboration with young Scot and the Scottish Youth Parliament, and the views of pupils in Lochgelly, Galashill and Glasgow. In addition, I will take an intervention. I am very grateful to Ruth Maguire for taking an intervention just on that point, which I think is a really important point about accessibility. Would you agree that also our materials that we provide as a Parliament, particularly in terms of education and helping people to understand what we do in this place, have to be accessible, including easy read formats that would be recognised by people who have a learning disability? I absolutely agree with that. I do not think that anything should be coming out of our Parliament that is not in those formats. It is not acceptable. In addition, people were able to write or email the committee in the usual way, which provided three additional submissions from Bordna Gallach, the Scottish election study team and media education. Committee members, I am sure, will talk more to the process, so if I could maybe just share some reflections on the themes. Theme 2 was growing community engagement. The committee's report acknowledges that the traditional model of parliamentary scrutiny can tend to prioritise those who already have an understanding of how the Parliament works and the resources to engage with its structures. I very much agree with them that this needs addressed. Again, I have witnessed just how beneficial it is to hear from a wider range of people, particularly those directly impacted in making sure—when we do that, we make sure that we understand and look at things in the round. I value the contributions made to scrutiny by everyone who gives evidence and assists in committee work. I am not criticising anyone here, but there is undoubtedly attention sometimes where organisations or individuals giving evidence have been in campaign mode, either for or against the particular law that is being looked at, or maybe they are involved in delivering the changes that the law will bring about and do not wish to seem unhelpful or resistant to the overarching policy aim of the law being examined. I think that widening our scrutiny can only help in our collective understanding of issues and a way through them. I think that we can all be inclined to being a bit binary and simple, either for us or against us. There are goodies or baddies who pick your team, but we all know the world is not like that. The complex issues that we are often seeking to address are not best solved with that approach. Properly engaging with the communities that we serve reminds us of their diversity and richness of not just characteristics but of opinion, and that will help us to find a way through any of the challenges that we face. Like Edward Mountain noted, I like the idea of letting people register their interests in particular topics. I think that that is really helpful. Most folk do not have time to be responding to individual consultations. I am looking at what the Presiding Officer is telling me to close. I had a lot more to say. It has been a really interesting debate. It is an excellent piece of work. I thank everyone who contributed, particularly the citizens panel themselves. Thank you, and I call Faisal Chowdry to be followed by Co-Camp Stewart. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I am happy to be here today to talk about public participation and engagement and the public participation inquiry undertaken by the Citizen Participation and Public Petition Committee. I am currently a member of the Citizen Participation Committee. Sadly, I missed the world tour like my colleague Maurice Golden. I am counting on our convener to organise another world tour, hopefully soon. Although I was not in the committee when this inquiry began, I have since worked on the committee through some of the report stages. As many of my colleagues have already addressed public participation and engagement opportunities, it must be easily accessible to the public. One of the themes raised in the recommendation, which I would like to talk about today, is regarding growing community engagement with the work of the Scottish Parliament. I have worked in the third sector and charity organisation all my life. Through this, I have engaged with many different communities and organisations, and I have been saddened by what I have heard in the past about certain communities' engagement with the Parliament and democracy in general. From some people originating from more disadvantageous backgrounds, I hear that they believe politics and participation was not meant for them. From some young people, I hear that they believe their opinion or participation was not wanted. These barriers, as the inquiry recommends, must be removed to encourage everyone to participate in democracy and engage with the parliamentary process. Many of these organisations that I have been involved with are run by or created to black and ethnic minority communities. Over the years, I was disheartened to hear that many from these communities have never thought to engage with public participation within the Parliament, and even more did not even know that it was an option to do so. Many others felt that the public participation process was again not meant for them and did not know how to engage with it even if it was. Part of this was due to representation, a theme which is highlighted in the inquiry report. As MSPs, we must ensure that citizens are able to see themselves reflected within this Parliament. Many also mentioned that they did not feel like they understood politics or the parliamentary process enough to fully engage with it. What is clear is that the current method of engagement with the public do not go far enough, especially when it comes to engaging the harder to reach in the communities. The findings and the recommendations of the citizens panel identified the barriers associated with educational level, employment status, a lack of representation in the Parliament and lack of trust in politicians and politics in general. It identified the areas of the community engagement where we are still lacking. It identified that barriers that still exist in Scotland for people accessing and feeling comfortable to access democracy. This includes travel expenses to go to the Parliament, time of work, time of from work if the work nine to five, childcare cost and difficulty with accessibility requirements. The proposed citizens panel will help close the gap in Parliament engagement. We must ensure that people believe that they have a role to play in Parliament, that their voices are heard and that they understand the means by which they can engage and participate. The purpose many citizen assemblies will be instrumental in doing this. However, in our role as MSPs, we can work to overcome these barriers that many of public face. We should ensure we are offering public participation opportunities for our constituents outside of normal business working hours, so that those within nine to five jobs or childcare issues have flexibility in their engagement opportunities. We can hold participation opportunities in different locations so that all accessibility requirements can be met. Presiding Officer, that is how we can work alongside the recommendations of the inquiry to improve community engagement with the Parliament. I have been absolutely fascinated by the debate so far. Anything that considers increased participation of our citizens across the country is of great interest to me. I have had a little bit of the fear of missing out of the world tours and the day trips and everything, but I have taken on the challenge of Maurice Golden to not have a speech and to share my reflections and thoughts and some experiences from the committee. Citizens participation. I have listened to many people talking about the pros and cons of that and how representative bodies are. What I have concluded from listening to that is that the more variety of methods that we use and the longer that we do that over, the better way we can capture everybody's voices along the way and take them with us in that. That requires bravery from a Parliament because, obviously, we have our structures. It has taken me two and a half years to get used to how we do things here, and you get attached to them. They are comfortable, but if they are not working for the public whom we are here to serve, and one of the things that strikes me when I first came and I went to events was that when the public was there and people would stand up and they would say, welcome to your Parliament. That is the phrase that has actually stayed with me throughout that time, so I support the work of the committee and I welcome that. On the Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee, we have had a look at doing our pre-budget scrutiny in a slightly different way. We have worked very carefully with the participation and communities team, who worked very hard behind the scenes to prepare some of our most vulnerable citizens across a geographical spread. People do not often have the confidence that they are battered down by the daily grind of the day, but they have an opinion on their housing and how that money is being spent in their local authorities if their bins are being collected. They get frustrated, they do not get the time, they do not have the skills often to be able to feed that back to us so that we can make better decisions. During our pre-budget scrutiny, what we did was that we allowed time for the team to work with those citizens to build their confidence and to be able to explain a little bit about how to make a valuable contribution, because they wanted to do that. They wanted to make a valuable contribution. The environment is intimidating as well, so there has been some debate about whether people come in or whether we go out. Again, I would advocate a mixture of the two to get a good quality sample. When they came in, we also did some cross-party work. My colleague Collette Stevenson, the convener of the Justice Committee, came and joined that. The public that came along, the citizens, thought that that was great because they do not think in silos when they are thinking about policy. We have portfolios and everyone has their responsibility, but the average person out there does not care whose responsibility it is. As a holistic human being, many portfolio areas are going to have an impact on their life, so they should be able to question it from where they are. Perhaps we need to think about more portfolio and cross-committee working and do scrutiny together across committees to get a true handle on things. From that, they devised their own questions that they wanted us to ask of the minister. We had the minister coming to committee and we asked verbatim the questions that were proposed by the citizens. They were in the committee room, sitting in the public gallery, so they were right there to hear a response from the minister for the questions. The feedback from that was absolutely amazing. I was surprised by that. One reflection was that they did not understand quite a lot the answers because, apparently, politicians speak a lot using acronyms. I have been careful not to use PACT, and I have said the participation in communities team. To be fair, it is like a code, is not it? It is exclusive. As politicians, we could be more mindful of showing clarity when we are trying to speak. The person is now going to use the Public Petitions Committee to put a petition to the Parliament to try to get us all to look at that, which is fantastic in that sense. In summary, what I am trying to say is that, on our Equalities Committee, we are leading the way. You always get early adopters for certain things. I have shared a bit of the experience with you. The citizens have felt really empowered. Their feedback was excellent. They thought that the Parliament as a whole had taken care of them and listened to them. They felt very connected. They did not realise that they could see us and speak to us and hear their questions being directly put in answer. We can all take heart that, although there is work to be done, there is an amazing amount of good practice that is going on. With this report, there is the goodwill to carry that even further. As members will know, I often refer to academic sources when researching for speeches. Thanks to Carnegie, I now know that. I quote, The principles of deliberation and sortition are not new, rooted in ancient Athenian democracy. They were used throughout various points of history until around two to three centuries ago. Evoked by the Greek statesman, Pericles, in 431 BC, the ideas that ordinary citizens, though occupied with the pursuits of industry, are still fair judges of public matters. Instead of being a stumbling block in a way of action, discussion is an indispensable preliminary to any wise action at all. That is not a new idea. I read the report with great interest and extend, like others, my congratulations to the authors, participants, the participation communities, team advisers and the committee themselves. I have also said since becoming an MSP that we need to make this place sing with a thousand different voices, both literally and metaphorically. On that note, and on the side, the start-up of the Scottish Parliament choir next Wednesday in the first of November in committee room 2, do not miss it, goes some way. But seriously, the extension to the people who really count our citizens is extremely important. Let us hear them all sing. I will make just a few comments that struck me. First, I propose to consider further some of the barriers to participative and deliberative democracy rather than just the recommendations and various themes. Three barriers resonated with me in particular, that of fear, representation and trust. I believe that we all in here consistently undermine the fear of speaking up in public. Despite us claiming, perhaps in the self-congratulatory way that we are all Jack Tamsons' bairns, the fact is that, from the outside looking in, we are not. The way we speak, the strange mannerisms and conventions appear inaccessible for many. Many of us here are well educated, but how often do we stop to consciously consider how our accents sound to ordinary Scots? I remember just recently being reminded by Darren McArvey of the great work that he has done to drive out understanding of the impact of a working-class Glasgow accent in the series Class Wars. I spoke only the other day to my colleague Emma Harper about the frankly bullying she receives via social media for her sterling efforts to promote our language, Scots. For women, taught subliminally to take their place, often behind and after the men have spoken, it must represent a particular challenge. I know that even in this debate, only 16 per cent of the attendees are women. The next barrier that struck me was that of representation, and there is considerable complexity in getting together a group, any group that can genuinely be a representative sample of our multicultural, multi-faceted, urban and rural Highland and Lowland Scotland. Perhaps the most important barriers that have trust, imperative in our politicians, are Parliament to make voices people's be heard, yet lacking at the present time. There are 21 uses. Yes, of course. Ruth Maguire? I thank Michelle Thompson for taking intervention. She mentioned trust there, which lets me wedge in the bit of my speech that I didn't get to. This whole process can build trust in our Parliament and in our institutions if we get it right, can't it? If we listen properly and reflect back, as Jackson Carlaw said, not always what people want us to do, but the reasons why we're not. I think that it's an excellent point with which I whole-simely agree. I was just mentioning that there are 21 uses of the term trust in the report and rightly so. We have to acknowledge how many people have lost trust in politicians in the political process and by extension their legislators. Sometimes I despair as we go along the hurly-burly of our politics where people are challenging each other without taking that thought of what is it saying to people outside about trust in their legislature. I think that we need to be very careful about that. We need to maintain it for the trust underpins and as a guardian of democracy. I would add one group to the list, journalists. Indeed, the report notes getting journalists more engaged to help spread knowledge where both issues are raised. Building the knowledge of journalists is valuable. I still encounter multiple instances where journalists don't appear to understand or perhaps choose not to governance. For example, separation of government and the judiciary. That appears to be an issue with MSPs too or the likes of the fiscal framework. On another note, I mentioned earlier that I consider this to be a good report. Costs have been carefully considered. We are living in very constrained times, so this is vital. I notice with favour the consideration of governance and accountability, and this model must be maintained. I completely agree with the other comments about the proliferation of other roles such as commissioners. Moving on, the report notes that legislation will require government and cross-party commitment. A common framework to measure impact was suggested, and that must evolve over time based on a thorough, committed feedback loop. The earlier comment from Martin Whitfield expressing disappointment at the proposed timescales, I take a different view. It is clear to me that this must proceed with cross-party buy-in and folding best practice and learning as we go along. Just a couple of comments. I suspect that Jackson Carlaw's legendary sense of humour contributed to the report, in which it notes that there can be a tendency for attitudes within the Holyrood bubble to become out of step with the views of ordinary people across the country. I think that that will win this year's understatement. There is also consideration of a travelling exhibition, and, hopefully, it will not be our oddest MSPs on display. But, seriously and concluding there, both participative and deliberative democracy and their place in enhancing scrutiny is vital and enshrining that vital link between citizens, our legislature and democracy, on that note, I embrace the principle wholeheartedly. Presiding Officer, I am pleased to wind up this debate on behalf of Scottish Labour this afternoon. We started with a characteristically funny and wide-ranging contribution from Jackson Carlaw as convener of the committee. Indeed, he commented that this might have been the graveyard shift, but I do not think that that is what we saw this afternoon in the debate. He spoke about wanting to inject suitable jollity into proceedings in this place, and I think that, this afternoon, we have had a bit of that. We have had a bit of serious debate, and we have also had some levity, which I think is all too important when we are considering those matters. I seriously want to pay tribute to Jackson Carlaw and to the committee for their work on this inquiry and, indeed, on the report, which I think is very important for us all, and I think that people across the chamber are keen to engage with it more fully. Also, of course, we should thank all the committee clerks, staff and those who were involved in the public participation elements of the work, whom I know are in the gallery today. We on this side of the chamber welcome the recommendations that seek to improve both the scrutiny of Parliament and Government and the engagement and trust of the public in parliamentary processes. We welcome the report's acknowledgement of the fact that Parliament's current methods of engagement with the wider public do not always go far enough, especially when it comes to engaging with harder to reach people in our communities. There is more that should be done to engage with and listen to citizens from across Scotland and to ensure that we do not put off that work and seek to do as much as we can in the remaining years of this session and then look forward into future sessions about how we can really move that work forward in a real fulsome way. I was really taken by many of the international examples that were cited in the committee's work. I will declare an interest as a dual citizen, someone who holds Irish citizenship, although not living on the island of Ireland, I do not expect to be asked to join a citizens panel there anytime soon. I think that it was Maurice Golden who said that politicians are the people who should absolutely furthest away from that sort of work anyway, and I think that there is truth in that, certainly. I think that it is particularly interesting the work that has been done in Ireland, particularly on issues that I think often have been difficult in the public discourse, issues that have led to wide social change or, indeed, constitutional change in Ireland, have widely, since about 2010, been reflected, debated and decided upon in terms of how to proceed by citizens assemblies, issues such as abortion, like people marriage, like changes to the voting age or reform of Doyle-Erin in the Irish Parliament. All those issues have been debated and discussed and proposals then brought forward to the eruptors in that regard, certainly. Jackson Carlaw. Cain touches on that point. One senior Irish politician paid a backhanded compliment actually to the principle of citizens panels, because he said to me, Jackson, what this is is a method for gutless politicians to be excused the difficult decisions and to palm them off to somebody else. However, on some of the big social change issues, that is, as I say, actually a backhanded compliment, because it means that the change is underpinned by citizen involvement, which then gives politicians the confidence to move forward. Paul O'Kane. I mean, absolutely, I think that it could certainly be viewed in that regard and perhaps an easy way out for all of us sitting in this chamber when grappling with some of those issues. I think that it is right that we want to underpin those decisions, not just with social attitude surveys or polling, but with a structure that can actually say that the Parliament has taken time to engage and to listen and to find that. In Ruth Maguire's contribution, I found that chiming with talking about some of the really, perhaps contentious issues very often that we have debated in this place, where there have been competing interests from third sector organisations or lobbyists or various groups in society that often become about, we are right, you are wrong, there is no middle ground, there is no concession. I will just finish this point. There are no concessions to be made when, actually, if we had a better participation restructure, we actually could look at the things in more detail. I give way to the minister. I thank Mr O'Kane for taking my intervention. Basically, it is important that I agree with much of what you have been saying there, but it is also important, I think, from my experience as the minister looking at the first two citizen assemblies that we did in the Scottish Ballad. The question that we ask is equally important. There is not to be any confusion as to the public, as to how they deliberate and come back to that. Does he agree with me that the questions that we ask give the value that the public will see and has actually been able to deliver something? I certainly do not think that we should rely on other people. It is about us saying, as a Parliament, that this is the direction, this is the vision. Is it for the Government also to propose their direction and vision and for that to then be scrutinised, if you like, and underpinned, as I said, in response to Jackson Carlaw, not solely for us to be led or instructed by those groups, but to do it hand in hand? It is a scrutiny of what has already taken place within the chamber. We have seen a lot of recommendations discussed this afternoon, which have much merit. I think that there are interesting exchanges in terms of how we bring people closer to this Parliament as well, particularly those from rural communities, as is outlined by Edward Mountain, young people, people from ethnic minority backgrounds, as is outlined by Faisal Tawdry, Co-Cab Sture and others. Looking at how we ensure that things do not become tokenistic, John Mason made some contributions in that regard. Questions are meaningful and participation is about not just saying that we are going to ask questions on your behalf but helping us to shape our understanding of those questions and the sorts of responses that we can have. Interesting contributions on the role of the Presiding Officer and, of course, the absence of the Presiding Officer around the judgment of the quality of questions and answers is someone who often falls foul of verbose and long questions. I might avoid any comment on the quality of my contributions being judged, but I do think that there is merit in having a fuller discussion and debate around that. I am glad to hear Martin Whitfield and his contribution speak about how his committee may look at that. Having just made a comment about time, I am going to wind up. Edwin Morgan in his poem for the opening of the building, Open the Door said, we give you our consent to govern and don't pocket it and ride away. That gets to the essence of what we are seeking to do through this report and through this work. It may take time to get there, but I think that this debate today and this report and the recommendations are an important first step, and we should all work together to move them forward. I am delighted to be winding up for my party on what has been an excellent debate this afternoon, and to say that there has been really good interaction across the chamber. That is to be very welcome. The Public Participation Inquiry was one of the key pieces of work that I was able to contribute to in my time as a member of the Citizens Participation and Public Partitions Committee, and I got the opportunity to go on the world tour. This Parliament has long strived to be a place that is welcoming and open to public participation. As such, it was and is to be welcomed that the Citizens Participation was added to the remit of the committee at the beginning of the current parliamentary session. The Public Partition Inquiry has followed a number of different avenues since the launch early last year. We have heard about some of the engagement work in today's debate, however the most important aspect of the inquiry has been the Citizens Panel on Participation. I was pleased that, through the panel, the committee was able to deliver not only some hugely positive and productive helpful recommendation, but also an experience that is deeply engaged in those who were involved in the process. All of those who took part in the panel had positive things to say about the experience, but it was perhaps the panel member Ronnie Paterson who put it in his own words when he said that none of us were well versed in politics or academia, but we came up with a recommendation 100 per cent as a group. The fact that we came up with those recommendations together shows the power of deliberative democracy. That is excellent feedback for a group of individuals who were brought together to represent us and to have their views and opinions expressed. They got the opportunity to do that and I think that that really showed the success that we had. While the panel itself was a success, the committee could then carry out further engagement to see what we could add to the report. Early this year, as many have indicated, a number of us had the opportunity to go to Dublin and to go to Paris and to see and experience and hear first-hand how they had gone about that. It was two years ago this month that Paris City Council voted to establish its own citizens assembly, which was itself formed by drawing on experiences of international practices. The assembly continues to find its feet and delivers its first recommendations. I am grateful to the participants and elected officials who provided us and my colleagues with very helpful insights as we went to see those locations in other parts of Europe. I thank the committee, the clerks, SPICE and everyone who supported us to ensure that that happened, because they had to do a huge amount of work to ensure that the timescale and the information that we had was beneficial for us all. This afternoon, we have had some excellent contributions. I think that it shows the calibre of debates that we can have in this chamber when we have a topic like this in which people have the opportunity to express, interact and become involved. My fellow member and convener Jackson Carlos spoke about the reputation of this Parliament and the perceptions that we had and where it sees and where it goes and feedback and recommendations and the success of the whole process. I think that there is no doubt that it has been successful. Talking about whether we are enhancing the reputation or undermining that reputation, that was talked about and discussed and has come out there. The public understands and the public still has a problem when they are talking about what is Parliament and what is Government. As I say, they get confused. I was just going to ask if my colleague would rephrase that slightly. There is not the public that has the problem. Maybe it is more incumbent upon us to be providing that education and being more resourceful and creative in the way that we reach out. I think that there is a lesson for us all as to how we are perceived and represent ourselves but also how the public perceive us as representatives of them. There is an imbalance there at the moment and that needs to be talked about. I think that there is a lot of feedback as to where we are. I think that the pilots that are going to be set forward once again will give us an opportunity to evolve and to work together to ensure that we can help one another. The minister talked about in the report that there were real challenges that we had to deal with going forward. I think that that is the case. The vision for this Parliament is that it wants to be engaging and that it wants to get the right balance because the balance is important. Maurice Golden spoke about the themes of the report and how that was talked about questions and answers and how that is managed and perceived within the chamber and what is a community. I have not got time to go to everybody, but I would like to mention the excellent contributions that we had from Martin Whitfield and Ruth Maguire. Edward Mountain, Michelle Thomson and Co-Campus, spoke with passion about what they see within the Parliament and how they want it to be represented. The healthy level of public participation should be a key ingredient into the way that we deal with democracy and our systems. Through the public participation inquiry, we have clearly identified a number of ways that we wish to improve the process and participation here in Scotland. It also gives a positive contribution to where we are going. In conclusion, much work has been done on the inquiry so far. I look forward to seeing the progress that we will see in the coming years. The report talks about the timescales for 23, 24, and a publication of the report 25. That report will set out that democracy might become institutionalised within our whole Parliament and how we can, along the challenges across the chamber, look forward to seeing some of the ideas that are debated today being put in place at the start of the next parliamentary session. I also look forward to seeing the Parliament take another step towards becoming the inclusive, dynamic and engaging institution that it wants to be and should be. I say that I have really enjoyed this very open and thoughtful debate. If only we could maybe do that more often. That is just a joke, but is it? Is it? The whole idea is that we have all sat here and talked about the challenges and the difficulties. We have done it in a mature manner. We have talked about the way in which we can go forward. It is maybe something that we should all take from this one debate when we actually move on to other things in the future. I thank all those who have engaged in this debate. One of the common threads of this debate has been not just the engagement but who we engage with. It really matters who are involved in the type of participation that will work for them. We must be thoughtful about that when we do it. One of the forms of engagement that the Scottish Government does, which I forgot to mention at the beginning, was the travelling cabinet. The travelling cabinet has started up again. Unlike Mr Carlaw and his committee, Paris Dublin, we went to Inverary. It was lovely, but we spoke and engaged with the people of Inverary, Argyll and the specific issues that they had. That is an important thing for the Government to do. It was good for me to be able to chair that as the Minister for Parliamentary Business, because A, I enjoy that kind of engagement with the public, and B, it is good that we sometimes feel uncomfortable. It is good that the Governments get that opportunity for the public to actually get their say. That specific community has got their opportunity to say it. Michelle Thomson Can you confirm the rumour that the next visit will be to Fergersley Park? No matter how many times the minister has brought that up, it appears that that has been told. We have already been in Renfrewshire one time before, so that is a difficulty. However, I will take from this debate, Ms Thomson, that you have obviously encouraged me and that might be a way forward for us. There has been 51 travelling Cabinet since 2008, and it is a mechanism for the public to directly hear from the Government themselves. A participatory approach is a golden thread through all the work that we do. That is demonstrated through our Verity House agreement with local government, our social justice work to empower communities and the review of local governments through our democracy matters conversations. It is also clear in the wider work that we do to tackle some of our deepest challenges such as poverty, inequality, climate emergency and reforms to health and social care. On 4 October, I updated the Citizens' Participation and Public Petitions Committee at their pre-budget scrutiny session to say that the Scottish Government is looking to resource a team that will have the capacity and the authority to develop, maintain and co-ordinate a consistent approach to public participation across the Scottish Government. Work on this continues, and we recognise that this is not something that one organisation can deliver alone, and this is something that has come up in the debate today because the Parliament has a role in this as well. I am pleased to say that this was acknowledged in the committee's report as well. We had quite a selection of individuals who were involved in today's debate. Maurice Golden mentioned parliamentary questions. I was going to say PQs, but we have already been sawed that we use acronyms far too often in this place, and that is another thing that makes it quite difficult for others to engage. I always like to think that I am someone who keeps a short, snappy and concise answer to the question. I do engage with anyone who has asked a question, and I think that it is important that we take that on board. I have asked colleagues whether they can explain the question, so we do not have that misunderstanding, because that can happen a lot of the time. I am very grateful to George Adam for giving way. Does it not reflect what Ruth Maguire said, that there is a personal responsibility, almost irrespective of what hat you are wearing, to respect this chamber and act appropriately? I think so, but part of the reason why I do it is that I do not want to be gibbering on for 10 minutes talking about something that is nothing to do with what you asked. There is no problem. I would like to reflect on how members might gain a better answer. Earlier this week, I spoke to Angela Constance to give her advance warning of what I was going to discuss, and the answer that I received was far more full. It was not designed to make a political point. Clearly, there is a part for that to happen, but there are ways in which members can improve their questioning as well. We have to engage with each other so that we not just get the value out of the question session, but the public understand what is going on, and they get the value as well. That is a perfect example of all of us taking responsibility in how we do business in the chamber. Mark Whithfield spoke about the examples that were mentioned in the report and how that should be embedded in the Parliament. I think that it is important that it should be an important part of the process of the Parliament. Sometimes not all of us get involved in a rami over a certain issue in this place, but at the end of the day, the public just want this place to do our jobs, and they sometimes do not want to see us get involved in an absolute rami on various issues as well. It is one of the things that we all need to, when we are dealing with highly political and highly difficult debates, we need to possibly look at ourselves in the mirror and say, what are we, anybody else that is not in this bubble, what do they see when we do this? I, for one, try to not get dragged into that, but sometimes we cannot help ourselves. John Mason mentioned how we balance parliamentary democracy with direct involvement with the public. That is an interesting point to me, that is what this is all about. For the public to engage in parliamentary democracy and vote is for them to see value in what they believe and what they are saying is being talked about in the floor of the chamber. I think that that is exactly what we are looking to do when we do this. I do not know what John Mason mentioned parliamentary questions and the Presiding Officer working out the geniwnith of the questions. I do not know how you define that, Presiding Officer, but that might prove to be quite difficult. Edward Mountain spoke about the importance of us actually delivering on the engagement, and he is 100 per cent correct, because I think that this is what I, when I asked my question to Mr O'Cain, was, effectively, the questions that we ask those groups to go and do some work on is equally important. If we ask an all-encompassing long debate, we are going to get a very detailed good report, but it is going to be very difficult for any of us in here to deliver on what was said in there. When you look at the Irish scenario, they ask their citizens assembly direct questions about certain issues and social issues, and they got the answers from the public there. Presiding Officer, just in closing, because I could see your motioning to me that I have ran out of time, my opening speech I closed with, I look forward to listening to colleagues and the exciting new models for engagement for the people we serve. This can change our Parliament for the better, because the way of working can create a bond and importance to this place with the public, and I look forward to working with everyone in this chamber to deliver that brave new future for our democracy. I call on David Torrance to wind up the debate on behalf of the Citizen, Participation and Public Petitions Committee to 5 o'clock, please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I also welcome members of the Citizens' Panel to the Public Gallery and the committee staff, and thank the committee staff for their hard job of keeping us on time and in place on our world tour. This has been an interesting debate and it has been encouraging to hear from colleagues across the chamber emphasising the importance of making parliaments proceedings accessible to people from all walks of life and encouraging them to engage in our work. When we opened the debate on behalf of the Citizens, Participation and Public Petitions Committee, the convener said that he had initially approached this topic with the degree of scepticism that had ended up as a cautious enthusiast. I think that all of us in the committee have been on a similar journey. For me, two particular things stand out. One was watching the progress made by members of our own Citizens' Panel, when they first arrived at the Parliament looking a little over-odd and uncertain of what they had let themselves in for to their confidence and energy by the end of the process. Participants of our Citizens' Panel worked together for over 32 hours, over two weekends and three remote online sessions in October and November. I had the pleasure of participating in one of these online sessions and it was a day that I remember well. At the outset, you could tell the number of people who initially were nervous, but as the session progressed, you could see them growing in confidence, enjoying engaging with the process and collaborating well as a group. We then invited a number of panel members to committee meeting in December last year to outline their recommendations to us. It was obvious how positive an experience had been for them. For me, it was extremely encouraging to hear their feedback and positive responses to being involved and hearing more about what each of them took away from the experience, with comments ranging from them. I have always been a follower of politics, but I did not even know the difference between Parliament and Government when I started this process. I did not understand separation in the structure or some of the information presented to the panel confirmed things that I thought I knew and other information completely dispelled illusions that I had. A second thing that shifted my own view was a visit to Paris and Dublin to see how deliberate democracy has worked and is working in these places. Neither of these systems or the one in Brussels, which we also learned about, is perfect, but it was clear from speaking to participants, politicians and officials involved, but deliberate democracy has been a valid part of how they do politics. I am confident that we can find a way to get those benefits here in the Scottish Parliament. Jackson Carlaw, Paul Cain and I understood, have all spoken of the Irish Assembly. I believe that from island model we have a strong example of benefits of a well-structured citizens assembly. The Irish Citizens Assembly was established in 2006 following the model of its predecessor, the Convention on the Constitution, which ran from 2012 to 2014 and whose recommendations had led to 2015 marriage equality referendum. For many years, despite increasing pressures for change, politicians of all colours had been reluctant to engage in the issue of the 8th amendment directly to place it firmly on a political and legislative agenda. However, it took only the input of 99 ordinary citizens, randomly selected so they would be broadly electorally represented of Irish society in terms of age, gender and social class to help break years of political deadlock and reach a consensus on this highly polarising issue. The decision to call the res referendum was, in fact, based on the recommendations made by this panel. I believe that it is a clear example of how bottom-up citizenship input can complement and enhance representation of democracy and act as an impetus for constitutional reform. We all know the result of its historic referendum held in 2018, but what many people probably do not know is that the outcome of the referendum virtually mirrored the Assembly's vote with the results of 66 and 64 per cent representally. As the convener says... Willie Coffey. Very much to the deputy convener for taking intervention. There's been quite a bit of discussion about the online element to all of this and the digital part of the technology, the part that that can play. The member will recall, as I do, that it's only a few years since the Parliament itself embraced at long last the use of digital technology to aid participation, both for members to vote in their proceedings. It was always possible, Presiding Officer, to do it, but it was only embraced because Covid made it a necessity. I wonder if I could ask the deputy convener, does he see further developments for us to exploit digital technology to aid this process and that the committee have a view whether we should retain the current advantages that we have using digital technology that are giving us at the moment? I thank the member for intervention. I would agree with him, yes, and the committee does have views. If the member would wait in my speech later on, there are some recommendations about it. We are fortunate in the in-house experience and knowledge and support that has been provided by officials across the Parliament, and I would like to put on record many thanks to all those who have helped us during the course of this inquiry. Turning to some of the comments during the debate on confusing terminology, citizens panel, citizens juries and delivered democracy, those are key terms defined in page 4 of the report, and the Parliament should know that we recommend the use of the term people's panel based on our own citizens panel's recommendation. As well as recommending greater use of people's panels, our report also considers many other aspects of participation. We heard some striking evidence early on about many barriers to engagement there are, and that was amplified by views of our own citizens panel. A roof of McGuire's question early on and Willie Coffey's intervention, the panel made a number of thoughtful recommendations about the Parliament to do more to seek out a range of voices and make it easier for people to engage. For example, by better promoting translation services and the use of an easy read and by creating a new web page where people can register their details so that the Parliament can alert them each time there is a new opportunity to express their views. I echo the comments made by my colleague John Mason getting out and about around the country and engaging with the general public, where they actually live and work as a great benefit, and some thing that should absolutely be encouraged because accessibility and opportunity is key to participation. Our report responds in detail to all the recommendations that the panel made, and it was encouraging to find that in many respects the panel was pushing an open door. As the minister mentioned earlier, the Parliament already has a public engagement strategy and there is already a lot of innovative work under way. We hope that that is a report, and the contribution that the citizen panel has made will serve to push that work forward and give it a higher profile. The final section of the report sits under a theme of strengthening trust in Parliament, and that was a bit more challenging for the committee. As Maurice Golden mentioned and I was raised in the debate today, we had earlier on in the inquiry that there is a widespread lack of trust in politicians and the political process, something that many of us also encountered daily in our constituencies and in media. It was not a surprise, but it also came out clearly from the citizen panel three recommendations under the heading. One of those recommendations was to give members of the public a direct opportunity to put their questions to Government ministers. As a committee, we were unable to support that idea of delivering this through a new type of chamber proceeding for a number of reasons set out in the report, but we do agree that underlying idea might be worth exploring further if there is cross-party support for doing so. That might be something that the Parliament of Royal could look at. The two other panel recommendations on the theme of trust were to give the President of the Parliament more powers to ensure that oral questions in the chamber are properly answered and to set up a people's panel to discuss MSP's code of conduct. In each case, we had mixed feelings. We understand why public trust is damaged by a way. We sometimes conduct ourselves in the chamber and we therefore respect those recommendations, but also see real difficulties in implementation. For a reason, we have proposed that the Standards, Procedure and Public Appointments Committee could explore these issues further. That is not meant to sound as if we are just passing the buck. It is more a recognition that matters relating to the member's conduct and the chamber's procedure fall squarely within the committee's remit than ours. We look forward to hearing in due course the outcome of SPPA committee's consideration on those issues. In conclusion, I would like to close this afternoon's debate by thanking members for their thoughtful contributions. I hope that this has gone some way to convincing other members to support the direction of travel set out in the report. The experience of other countries has shown us that the Government is receptive, a citizens panel can deliver dramatic policy recommendations on difficult and emotive issues through people-led discussion with complete transparency and fairness. It is now up to us to reflect on the role that we can play in our own democracy and I would encourage all members to support the convener's motion. That concludes the debate on embedding public participation in the work of the Parliament. It is now time to move on to the next item of business, which is consideration of motion 10958, in the name of Shona Robison, on economic crime and corporate transparency bill UK legislation. I call on Shona Robison to move the motion. Thank you. The question on this motion will be put at decision time. There are two questions to be put as a result of today's business. The first is motion 10765, in the name of Jackson Carlaw, on behalf of the citizen participation and public petitions committee, on embedding public participation in the work of the Parliament be agreed. Are we all agreed? The motion is therefore agreed. The final question is that motion 10958, in the name of Shona Robison, on economic crime and corporate transparency bill UK legislation be agreed. Are we all agreed? The motion is therefore agreed. That concludes decision time and I close this meeting.