Seòmar agus comataidhean

Will the member take an intervention?

[Made a request to intervene.]

Having pressed my button, I thought that seeing my image on the screen would be enough to halt you in your tracks, Mr Carlaw, but obviously it was not.

I have huge regard for those efforts, but a little bit of me always says that, even with the holding of people’s panels, the people that I—and, I am sure, all members—want to reach are the very ones who have never voted, who are in housing schemes and who see nothing of worth in any politicians, whatever political hue or rank we might be, and regardless of whether we are on councils or whatever. How on earth do we reach out to those people? I do not wish to undercut what is being done; it is just that, somehow, I feel that we are never going to reach those people.

Will the member take an intervention?

Oh, I was hoping for 15 minutes, but there we go. I wonder, Mr Carlaw, what was making your face redden during that discussion.

Indeed, and that relates to what Oliver Mundell said about the work of panels not being a substitute for the formal processes of Parliament.

I refer members to paragraph 66 of the committee’s report, which says:

“While deliberative democracy, and participation more generally, are important tools to support the work of the Parliament, we agree ... that ‘public participation will not be suitable for or resolve every issue, and will be one of many evidence sources used to make decisions. In these situations, credibility and trust can be maintained by being open and transparent about how decisions are made.’”

That underlines the importance of making clear exactly what the panel is for. The elements that public participation brings out might be valuable, or they might not, but it certainly means that people can genuinely be part of a process of involvement.

I agree with members who have said that we must improve engagement with the wider public, particularly through our work on committees. I think that people’s panels are a modest improvement, which I support. That is not a criticism—I am simply being realistic. I will give an example of what we could do. Personally, I hold my surgeries in Tesco, with my messages and my trolley at my side, right next to customer services. I hope that, in a small way, that reduces barriers to meeting me as a politician—Ah’m jist a wumman out wi ma shopping. That small change in my approach has helped people to engage with me. If that could be expanded so that people were generally less intimidated by politicians and politics, we might get even more value from the participation process.

I do not think that that is the thrust of the committee’s report. Also, those difficulties are sometimes overcome by having a round-table discussion that allows the various witnesses to interact with very little intervention by members. You can sometimes get good evidence from that, although it is very difficult for the purposes of the Official Report. That is another method and can be part of the process.

I recall something similar to what is being suggested happening when the justice committee held a light-touch, regulated discussion in which mock criminal cases were presented to different groups. It was structured to allow each group to determine the penalty to be given to the accused who was on trial, which meant that there was a narrowly focused topic. At first, there was limited evidence about the background of the accused, and the penalties given were pretty draconian. More background information was then introduced, with the effect being that the judgments about the appropriate disposal changed and were modified. What had been black and white became, if members will forgive me, shades of grey—not 50, but shades of grey. I thought that that exercise was successful because it had a narrow focus and because there was detailed discussion about what was appropriate in each case, which led to complex, not simple, judgments.

The report supports that, saying in paragraph 65 that

“Participants in deliberative processes tend to come out knowing more about the topic and are willing to revise their opinions in light of new information and opportunities to deliberate together. This is in striking contrast to much current public debate, which tends towards polarisation, fixed opinions and misinformation.”

I refer members back to the example that I gave from many years ago of the justice committee looking at the penalties for various crimes.

I also caution against giving members of the public an expectation that their views might have greater or, indeed, lesser value than those of their elected representatives, which would undermine people’s trust even more. It reminds me of the perceived effects of victim impact statements, which people think will do far more than they actually do—they will not change the conviction that is given at the end of a trial. Therefore, we must make it clear exactly what that the panel process is and is not for.

I declare an interest, as my sons are Gallovidians and I lived and worked there for many years, when I saw the beautiful landscape buried by the Forestry Commission overplanting Sitka spruce.

I find the reporter’s results disappointing—I understand them, but they are disappointing—as Galloway could well do with increased tourism opportunities, which would provide work that would help to redress the imbalance in demographics. I do not know whether the cabinet secretary will know this, but, given its interest in the economy, does South of Scotland Enterprise have any options that might be open to the Government?

A family with two children aged under 16 that is able to access the Scottish child payment will receive £54.30 a week. That makes a big difference. I advise the cabinet secretary—corroborating what she has already said—that, during my recent visit to Peeblesshire Foodbank, I was told that it has had fewer calls for its resources as a direct result of the Scottish child payment.

I have a bizarre and inexplicable tolerance of Mr Kerr, who is like that black cloud that appears on a sunny day, even if only temporarily. [Interruption.] Can I—