���˿���

Generally, coming from Mr Ewing, yes.

If you feel that you do not need to ask me back for budgetary reasons in future, do not feel obliged to do so. I am a bit disappointed that the crowd is not here to see me; it must be here for the excellent work that you will be doing later.

I thank the committee for asking me along. The Scottish Government’s vision for public participation is for people to be involved in decisions that affect them, making Scotland a more inclusive, sustainable and successful place. In summer 2021, we established the institutionalising participatory and deliberative democracy—IPDD—working group to help us develop the infrastructure and skills needed to deliver that vision. In March 2022, the working group published its recommendations, which focused on developing a broad range of democratic innovations. In March 2023, the Scottish Government published its response to the recommendations.

The Scottish Government agrees with the working group on the importance of the availability of high-quality, meaningful and inclusive opportunities for public participation in order to ensure that public services deliver what people need to improve their lives and outcomes. That remains a vital driver for reform. We recognise that that means significant changes to the ways in which policies and services are developed and implemented, with partners, stakeholders and the people of Scotland playing a vital role. Our response sets out what we will do in order to deliver on each of the working group’s recommendations and notes the current limits on our ability to deliver our complete vision. Those limits are a result of the financial situation facing the Scottish Government, which continues to be the most challenging since devolution. Nevertheless, we still recognise the important benefits of involving the public in decisions that affect them.

We live in times characterised by complex challenges: the climate emergency; substantial economic turmoil and the cost of living crisis; and the Covid-19 pandemic and its legacies. By drawing on the considered views of the public, the Government will be better equipped to take the complex and difficult decisions that we face. Public understanding of and input into those difficult decisions can help us chart a route through that is fairer and that meets the fullest range of people’s needs.

I am happy to take questions from the committee.

I will bring in Doreen Grove. This is one of her pet subjects and she will be able to give you a more complete answer than I can.

I was just going to say, after Doreen’s very public pitch for more funds, that she engages with colleagues across the world. There are yearly events: there was one in Rome last year and one in Tallinn this year. I did not manage to make it to those, incidentally. For the Rome one, I was in Aberdeen at the Scottish National Party conference, because I know the right thing to do. For the Estonia one, I had to be here to deal with the programme for government. However, it is important that we have those engagements, because we do not believe that we have every single good idea or right idea. It is about seeing how those other models might fit with us.

I will answer your question as carefully and concisely as possible. We still believe that citizens assemblies are a way forward. Do we have financial constraints? Yes, we do. The level of citizens assembly participation that we were looking for will need £2.8 million to set up. That is challenging at this time, as you will be aware. When everyone in every portfolio and across portfolios is looking at their budgets, it is difficult.

Are we engaging with the public in other ways? That is why I asked a question in return. We are using other panels involving the public to ask the same questions and to engage at a smaller level. The enthusiasm is still there; the question is whether I can get the funding. Obviously, funding has moved and it will now be from the individual portfolio that is asking the question of the citizens assembly. We are looking at individual portfolios to deliver, and they are looking at that, but they also face challenges.

My opinion about citizens assemblies in general and how we go forward with them is that we should do what other nations have done and keep the questions pretty simple. The first two questions that we asked were wide-ranging: how do we save the planet and what is Scotland’s future? Those are big questions and it is difficult to find out what we could deliver from those reports. The Republic of Ireland used citizens assemblies to deal with questions that its politicians found difficult to discuss in their Parliament: they were able to use the public to push them forward. For example, a citizens assembly was used to discuss abortion. Assemblies provide an opportunity to really look at a subject.

We have committed to look at council tax and how local government is funded, and it would be interesting to hear what the public said when they got all the facts and figures in front of them. We politicians have kicked that question around for all the time that I have been in the Parliament and it would be an interesting subject for a citizens assembly. Our main issue, at this stage, is getting funding for the assemblies, but we are still engaging with the public through other means to answer such questions.

I take on board everything that you are saying. Listen—as I have said to the committee on numerous occasions, I do not have a monopoly of good ideas. If someone turns up with a idea that will make something better and will make it work in the way that it should work, that is fair enough—my officials and I will look at it.

However, the idea of a protocol makes me a bit nervous, because we are currently managing to make the process work, to a degree. It takes time; the UK Government would say to me, “Well, that’s the time it takes, so work around it.”

Are you talking about the likes of framework bills and how we go about deciding on them?

Ironically, Jeremy, you and I were on the Social Security Committee when the Social Security (Scotland) Bill went through Parliament. I do not remember the framework part of the bill being the biggest issue that we dealt with at that stage; it was more the policy part that we discussed. For me, the most important thing is not how a bill is presented, but how Parliament scrutinises the policy.

Yes, the fact that we still intend to do that was part of the one-to-one conversation that I had with the convener earlier. More likely than not, some of those SLC bills will come to the committee. That is a broad-brush comment.

As I have said previously, the situation is that we have to work with the UK Government. We have to consider its side of things and I have to work around its processes.

When I come along to the committee, I am often told that I must respect Parliament and give Parliament time to process the detail. It is quite funny that I have been trying to say something similar in some of my earlier answers today. It is a difficult balancing act for us to press the UK Government enough in saying that we need to know the detail, so that we can do what we need to do up here. It is the UK Government’s process, so it controls that.

The approach tends to be that officials talk to officials, and the discussions move up to ministerial level at times. I have not had such a meeting for a wee while, but I used to have meetings about various sections of the Scotland Act 1998 that we were dealing with.

In the first such meeting that I had with my UK counterpart, we said, “Listen—can we leave the politics at the door?” We were just talking about how both Parliaments can work together and deal with the issues. My counterpart agreed, because we needed to do that to make things happen.

The intention is to give my officials and UK Government officials the opportunity to have such conversations and move things forward. I do not know who is best to give more detail on that—is it Steven MacGregor?