Seòmar agus comataidhean

The recommendations are set out in summary and in detail in the report and cover two themes, which are

“developing a broad range of participation and democratic innovations”,

and

“using this system as a basis to establish routine use of Citizens’ Assemblies in Scotland”.

On the first theme, different time periods are specified. There are early foundational actions, actions in the current session of Parliament to May 2026 and longer-term ambitions for consideration. Obviously, we know the length of the current parliamentary session, but the other time periods are perhaps not so specific.

There are significant asks of the Scottish Government. For example, there is a requirement for a unit in the Scottish Government with responsibility for participation, which seems to be a response to the objective of providing an indication of the necessary resources—obviously, that will have to be led by Government.

There are also a number of recommendations that engage the Parliament specifically. For instance, there are the recommendations to

“Adopt values, principles and standards for institutionalising participatory and deliberative democracy in Scotland ... Support upcoming reviews and legislation to embed participation and deliberation across the system ... Consider the proposals of the Citizens’ Assembly on the Future of Scotland for new infrastructure associated with the Scottish Parliament ... Collaborate with local government, public services and Parliament to establish and agree a clear agenda setting guidelines for all Citizens’ Assemblies”

and to

“Connect to the Scottish Parliament Committee system for scrutiny of Citizens’ Assembly processes and recommendations”.

Bearing in mind the recommendations that engage the Parliament, how do the different categories and time periods relate to one another, and which are particularly time critical? What recommendation prioritisation took place in the group, and are there any critical recommendations that we should take particular note of? I open that

Sorry, convener.

Do any of the witnesses want to make any final points on the report’s implications for the Parliament? Is there anything that the committee should latch on to and take forward?

[Inaudible.]—indicative set of practical opportunities that we might be able to pursue. You said that you do not want to jump the gun in relation to what resourcing might look like, but have there been any indicative costings for the resources that will be necessary to support the work that you are proposing?

Thank you for those answers. I am trying to establish an example on which there could be more rapid movement. Yesterday, there was a debate on the new national planning framework 4, and it was mentioned earlier that public engagement on planning can often be in the hostile context of a perceived threat. Has there been consideration of actions that the Parliament could take, perhaps through this committee or other committees, to advance the agenda of citizens assemblies or other approaches to deliberative democracy in relation to, for example, NPF4 and reform of the planning system? Is that a particular case that the committee could take cognisance of?

There is definitely merit from a social justice point of view in the petition’s proposed creation of a universal public good. It is also worth thinking about the fact that, although the issue is often talked about in terms of the cost of infrastructure and provision, increasingly, there are advances in community food growing and provision. Therefore, perhaps the issue needs to be considered in the wider context of communities’ food resilience.

There is an interesting project in Glasgow involving Locavore, which is a community food local enterprise. It has taken over parts of public parks to start growing produce that can be sold commercially and used for food justice projects through food pantry networks and so on. That can all be part of the picture, and there is perhaps a bigger piece of work that needs to be done about how we improve the supply of food in the local community. That could be part of the exercise, too—the approach could be part of a broader public good than simply being the mechanical exercise of providing catering for schools.

No problem. Just to—

I was particularly struck by the description of the plight of people on the seasonal workers scheme and the implications of the current situation for them, given that the vast majority of them are Ukrainian. Mr Sirel, it is great that the Ukraine advice Scotland service has been set up, but how easy has it been to reach people on the farms and other locations in which they are physically restricted? Has that been relatively straightforward? Has the Home Office been co-operative with regard to providing relevant information about where people are located?

I have no relevant interests to declare.

I really appreciate the tone, particularly in relation to the bus pass; there is a real spirit of collaboration. Certainly, conversations that colleagues have had with ministers have been very positive. The modelling that has been produced shows that the policy could be very cost effective and has been shared with the Minister for Transport as well as the Cabinet Secretary for Social Justice, Housing and Local Government.

I note that you say that you are hopeful of progress. Could greater pace be projected into that work with leadership from you and others in a cross-party group to pull it together and drive it forward? There are time constraints around people’s welfare.

There was an interesting intervention from Mr Sirel on the previous panel, who mentioned NRPF restrictions and benefits that are not specified in the schedule. The schedule itemises 26 benefits, but access to other funds that are not specified is not restricted. The key theme that came out of the discussion with the previous panel was that there are ways to circumvent the NRPF restrictions. We can be creative with that, which is potentially a route for getting money into people’s pockets who are way below even the minimum level at which the social security system would provide support to British citizens. Is there an opportunity for us to work together on a cross-party basis to drive that forward?