How should parliament incorporate the public’s voice?
Opinion polls – measuring uncritical, off-the-cuff responses to complicated questions – are shallow at best, misleading at worst, and when amplified by the media and other sources can have a detrimental effect on policy making. Instead of gathering citizens’ opinions, political decisions should be made after garnering citizens’ considered and informed judgement.
This is what a Citizens’ Assembly will do.
The overarching benefit of a Citizens’ Assembly in the Scottish Parliament would be a profound increase in the legitimacy of Scottish laws by providing solid evidence of the considered endorsement by a representative sample of
deliberating Scottish citizens.
― The Citizens’ Assembly would be selected by random sortition – i.e. a random sample of Scottish residents, balanced to reflect the demographics of Scotland.
― This Upper House would be permanent and distinct from any other Citizens’ Assemblies that Scotland could form to discuss either general views or a specific topic.
― Three models of Upper House are discussed. An Advisory Chamber would be the weakest form of Assembly, with the power to scrutinise bills and suggest amendments (in a manner similar to the current Committee system) and to apply censure to the Scottish Parliament or MSPs.
― The next model would be a House of Review similar to the House of Lords where bills could be directly amended or delayed but in most cases not permanently blocked.
― The most powerful Citizens’ Assembly would be a full Senate with the ability not only to amend legislation proposed by the Parliament but to introduce legislation of its own accord (with appropriate caveats).
― Citizens would be paid a rate comparable to MSPs while they sit for a two year term and provisions would be put in place – similar to those in place for juries – to support employers who lose their employee for this period and to assist Assembly members to re-integrate into their previous job when their term ends.