Since 2022 the Citizen Participation Public Petitions (CPPP) Committee has been working towards understanding how public participation in the work of the Scottish Parliament can be increased. This blog gives an update on that work, and looks back to see if, as the Committee’s work draws to a close, some of the fundamental questions raised earlier in the process have been answered.
In this blog we use the terms Citizen’s Panel, and People’s Panel. These are essentially the same processes – a panel of 24 people who are broadly representative of the Scottish population, and have diverse viewpoints on the issue being explored, that is recruited through random selection (known as sortition). The panel is tasked by a committee to, over two weekends, answer a question in a process facilitated by Parliament staff and bringing in expertise and lived experience. Initially, these were referred to Citizen’s Panels in the Scottish Parliament, but following recommendation by one of these panels, the term People’s Panels has been used since 2024. The use of people’s panels does not replace the decision-making process or role of committees; it is one of a number of tools that a committee can use to enhance scrutiny.
Because of the length of this blog, we’ve added a table of contents to make it easier to navigate.
Background
The Citizen Participation Public Petitions Committee commissioned a Citizen’s Panel in late-2022, and tasked it to answer the question:
“How can the Scottish Parliament ensure that diverse voices and communities from all parts of Scotland influence our work?”
Among other things, the panel recommended that the Parliament find a way to institutionalise the use of deliberative democracy. The Committee explored how this might be done by looking to practice in other legislatures, and what may be feasible in the Scottish Parliament. Then, in its September 2023 report, the Committee responded to the 17 recommendations made by the Citizens’ Panel and set out the Committee’s vision for effectively embedding deliberative democracy in the work of the Scottish Parliament. The Committee agreed to the majority of the panel’s recommendations, at least in principle.
The Committee concluded that the Parliament should use Citizens’ Panels more regularly to help committees with scrutiny work, and made several recommendations for pilot and preparatory work, with certain guiding principles, with the expectation that the Committee will recommend a model that the Parliament can use after the 2026 election.
After the inquiry
In its report, the CPPP Committee set out a timeline for the development of a blueprint for embedding deliberative democracy in the work of the Parliament.
Over one and a half years since this point, the Parliament has carried out two People’s Panels, one on post-legislative scrutiny (Climate Change) and one on a topical matter (Drugs Harms and Drug Deaths). These have been evaluated by external experts, and their impact has been and is being tracked, including in a recent SPICe blog.
To support learning, SPICe has also run three fellowships to date:
- Dr Adam Chalmers (University of Edinburgh) explored how AI text analysis could be used to track the journey of evidence through the scrutiny process.
- Dr Ruth Lightbody (Glasgow Caledonian University) developed a framework and set of core principles for practice for the use of deliberative practice in the Scottish Parliament, publishing her work in a full report and accompanying SPICe blog.
- Dr Cara Broadley, Glasgow School of Art used a Participatory Action Research model, including co-design, to how creative methods could be used in connecting engagement and participation to scrutiny. Her report was published within a recent SPICe blog, which also included her experiences of working in an immersive way in the Parliament.
The blueprint and final recommendations
With this body of experience and evidence to draw upon, the Committee has now published a final report and its proposed Blueprint (“the Blueprint”) with suggestions for the Parliament. These include:
- four panels to take place in Session 7 (in 2027, 2028, 2029 and 2030).
- Clear principles for topic selection, delivery, and committee engagement.
- Ongoing monitoring and evaluation to maintain quality.
- Suggestions for further development of this work to ensure the maximum impact.
Have all the questions been answered?
Through the committee’s inquiry process, SPICe published a series of blogs outlining the research context for the committee’s work and the implications for the Scottish Parliament. These, along with all committee, fellowship and evaluation outputs, can be found in our recent deliberative democracy timeline blog. In a March 2023 blog, following the Committee’s visits to other legislatures, SPICe suggested that more questions had been raised than answered. So, with all the additional learning that has come since, have these questions been answered?
How might a deliberative model originating in a Parliament, as opposed to in Government, look different?
Originating a deliberative process in a parliament is inherently different from one led at an executive or government level, because of the different role of these institutions. Put simply, the opportunity to change and influence policy within parliament-led panels will be more limited, as the parliament is there the scrutinise government instead of to enact policy.
This means that the purpose and role of a panel process, and what ‘success’ looks like, will be different, and will need to be clearly defined and understood by panel members, politicians and the public. Using a different name, unique to the Scottish Parliament, is one way of making this difference clear.
As Dr Ruth Lightbody explained in her fellowship report:
“Deliberative processes will not always result in change, but the policy scrutiny it affords is designed to improve policy, by making scrutiny more transparent, and decisions more robust and sustainable. Expectations of participants and political actors should be managed.”
The model with clear principles proposed in the Blueprint sets out clear standards and expectations of how panels should be used. This, coupled with the Parliament’s unique internal delivery service further makes it clear what makes a parliamentary People’s Panel different from one led by the Government.
How could the Scottish Parliament best balance deliberative democracy with representative democracy?
In its initial inquiry report, the CPPP Committee made it clear that one of the core principles for the use of deliberative democracy in the Parliament must be “That deliberative democracy should complement the existing model of representative democracy and be used to support the scrutiny process.”.
Through a body of research, evaluation and factfinding, the CPPP Committee has been able to develop a Blueprint which makes it clear that People’s Panels are one of a suite of tools available to committees in scrutiny. As with all engagement, participation and evidence-gathering approaches, it is up to the commissioning committee how it uses the findings of a panel. The importance of trust and a robust response to panels is not forgotten in the approach, and the CPPP Committee’s report explains that Panels should not be seen as a catch-all solution:
“While embedding a deliberative approach in the work of the Parliament through People’s Panels is not a solution in and of itself, the Panels can make an important contribution to both the wider scrutiny ecosystem and demonstrate how a deliberative approach can address issues that matter to people.”
How can the Scottish Parliament best scrutinise the deliberative work of the Scottish Government?
Throughout the Parliament’s deliberative journey, it has also maintained an eye on the use of participation and deliberation in the Scottish Government. One way in which this has been progressed is through the Budget scrutiny process.
During its pre-Budget scrutiny process in 2023, the Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee focused on participation as one of the core principles of human rights budgeting. As part of this, it interrogated the Government’s use of participation and lived experience in making budget decisions. It has continued this interest since, for instance by asking the Scottish Government to provide examples of where inequality and lived experience had been used to inform policy development and spending decisions during it’s most recent round of budget scrutiny.
The same year, the CPPP Committee carried out budget scrutiny for the first time, looking at the overall budget allocations and approach to engagement and participation in the Government. It referenced this work in its blueprint report, and requested an update from the Scottish Government.
How might the Scottish Parliament set topics in a way that balances public will with keeping discussions relevant to the powers of the Scottish Parliament?
The Blueprint sets out a clear process for topic selection and sign-off, which works around criteria developed by Professor Stephen Elstub during an academic fellowship with the Scottish Parliament and agreed in 2023 by the Conveners Group:
- Problem: The topic focuses on an issue that needs solved and would benefit from deliberative input. In the context of post-legislative scrutiny this means assessing if a review of the implementation and impact of an Act would benefit from consideration by a panel of informed and broadly representative members of the public.
- Scope: The topic is sufficiently broad in scope; it is an issue that will affect various members of the public and have an impact on broader society .
- Framing: the topic can be posed as a question or in the form of a problem to solve. For example, is an Act achieving its intended purpose? Is it benefiting people in the way originally intended by lawmakers?
- Timing: It is a timely topic – both the public and politicians are still in the process of forming opinions on the issue. In the context of post-legislative scrutiny, it would mean that the Act being scrutinised has the potential to be considered for amendment in the near future.
- Impact: the topic is relevant to a current or forthcoming committee inquiry, committee members and staff see potential benefit from a deliberative panel and there is a commitment to considering and responding to the panel recommendations as part of the Committee’s inquiry.
- How can the Scottish Parliament (and indeed, the Scottish Government) make sure it maintains flexibility and a culture of continuous improvement in its approaches to deliberative democracy?
Flexibility has been a requirement reflected in the Committee’s reporting throughout, alongside the recognition that People’s Panels are only one of many tools which committees might use to increase participation in scrutiny. This is the ethos behind the principles-based approach taken to recommending their use.
In the Blueprint, whilst recommendations are made on how panels should be used, evaluation and reflection remain a focus to allow for changes to be made to the approach over time, and a review of the use of panels at the end of Session 7 is recommended. These measures in combination ensures that the Parliament isn’t locked into a single model and can continue to adapt and evolve its participation approach.
Can the Scottish Parliament use it’s learning from elsewhere to help to build and institutionalise its own bespoke and unique model?
Having an understanding of what has been done elsewhere and having external support to explore options and evaluate our processes, has been a cornerstone of both the Committee’s work, and the work carried out by Parliament staff. This has included building and collaborating with a research community that truly understands the deliberative world and how it applies in the Scottish Parliament context.
We have taken that learning back out, by engaging with international networks and bringing academics new to our context into our research community. As a result, the Scottish Parliament’s reputation for innovation has travelled far and wide, as noted by Professor Cristina Leston-Bandeira in recent evidence to the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee:
“The Scottish Parliament is well known internationally for how well it involves the public, which it does through the participation and communities team and all the work that they do, the deliberative democracy exercise and the lived experience panels. The Parliament is strongly concerned about involving seldom-heard groups. Doing so is difficult, but at least such a perception of the Scottish Parliament exists, which might not be the case for lots of other Parliaments.”
A full picture of the research and reporting on the Parliament’s deliberative journey can be found in our recent timeline blog.
Wider context and opportunities
Around the Blueprint, the Parliament is continuing to develop its participation and engagement services, and it’s understanding of best practice.
A current SPICe Fellowship with Dr Clementine Hill O’Connor is exploring how lived experience is used in scrutiny at the Scottish Parliament, and this will result in principles for practice in a model which complements the Blueprint.
Work is ongoing internally to continue to embed participation and deliberative practice within scrutiny services. This includes demonstrating the role and impact of deliberative work and engagement by developing a framework for tracking and communicating impact. There is also a drive to build facilitation skills in the wider scrutiny services, and to use these in other contexts, such as service development (as seen in Dr Cara Broadley’s work), or in supporting members through work planning and inquiry scoping.
This approach ties in with evidence from the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee’s inquiry into Committee Effectiveness, which suggests that deliberation and participation should be part of an integrated service approach. For example, deliberation can be a valuable tool in making sure that committees focus on the issues that matter to the people of Scotland. As Brian Taylor said:
“Committees can adopt the … broad principle of saying, “We are investigating this to find out why it matters to you and what difference it makes to your life. We are on your side in that search for answers. We are not on the side of our committee, of the Parliament and certainly not of the governing executive. We are on your side in trying to seek answers and information and to disseminate information.” As long as you do that, you will win, secure and maintain trust.”.
The timing of the outcomes of these intersecting pieces of work is ideal. With the Committee Effectiveness inquiry report due before October recess, culminative learning can be fed into the establishment of the new Parliament following the May 2026 elections. This includes supporting the induction of new members, and the establishment of new committees.
With a solid body of practice, the challenge that remains will be communicating this to the public and building a level of understanding among the Scottish population that this is their Parliament. This might include building people’s awareness of committees, the work they do to involve people in scrutiny, and the impact this can have. The Parliament’s Public Engagement Strategy is currently being reviewed, again making the timing of the Blueprint and Committee Effectiveness work ideal to inform approaches going forward.
Conclusion
The questions we asked in our March 2023 blog have been addressed, but only in so far as they can be – the process of answering some will never truly be over as in a flexible model, the service and approach will always be adapting and flexing. Continuing to understand and communicate the impact and value will be crucial.
The Parliament agreed at a debate in October 2023 that the Blueprint was a direction of travel it wished to support. The debate on 3 June, when the Parliament will assess the Blueprint and Committee’s suggestions will show whether the Committee has delivered the aspirations of members and allayed any concerns.
Ailsa Burn-Murdoch, Senior Researcher, SPICe