Seòmar agus comataidhean

I see that you want to come in on that, too. The Oban day was quite well supported, while the one in Dumfries was not very well supported at all. It was interesting; having been to the one in Stornoway, which was a big success, I thought, “This is wonderful,” only to go to Parliament days in other places where nobody seemed very interested in coming at all. That said, they were worthwhile initiatives that could be thought through and taken forward a bit further, although I go back to Maria Schwarz’s earlier point about ensuring that, whatever you do, it is something that people actually want to participate in.

Yes, it is the same thing for me. As you say, we currently almost put obstacles in the way of participation with schools. It can be quite difficult for politicians to be proactive, because some schools are sensitive to the idea that that might not necessarily be about promoting the work of the Parliament but about promoting a particular political ideology, which can create concern for local education authorities. That is an important point.

Thank you all very much. It has been a fascinating conversation. I will go back to each of you for a final thought that you would like to leave the committee with. I will do it in the same order as when I started, beginning with Ronnie Paterson. What would you like to say to us as your final thought?

It is important to tell our visitors that part of those Parliament days was a public session of the Public Petitions Committee, of which David Torrance and I were members, and we were hearing petitions specifically from people from those communities. One or two led to fundamental changes on behalf of communities; indeed, I remember one that related to what was known as the Tinkers’ Heart, which was a historic landmark—a burial ground, almost—for people from the Travelling community. The site was in a very poor state of repair, and it was subsequently adopted, with formal access. That was the reason for our participation, and it was, I think, quite invigorating to go out to where the petition had originated instead of our bringing the petitioners here.

If there are no other questions, I will just come back to recommendation 14, on having some kind of debating time in the chamber with the public. Has that recommendation come about as a result of your view that digital communications have improved to the point of allowing the public to participate in that way? What were you imagining—some formal session of the Parliament at which members of the public could be present or at which their questions could be introduced in some digital way? Were you just raising the concept and leaving things a bit more open with regard to the detail?

Thank you. That area of engagement is the first one that we will come to, and I know that you and Maria Schwarz will lead on that.

For people who might be following our proceedings this morning, it is important to say that the 19 individuals who came together were not nominated as such—they are not representatives of particular organisations, sectors or third-party bodies. We arrived at the 19 from a very wide, random selection of the public. The whole point was to bring into the inquiry voices that did not come with any particular baggage or association with political activism, the third sector, voluntary organisations or anything like that. It really was the case that we wanted to get fresh input so that a fresh look could be taken.

It is remarkable that, through that process, you have all come together to produce such a striking report. The recommendations fall under a series of different obvious headings, the first of which is community engagement, which is the subject that Paul MacDonald started to talk about. Maria and Paul will lead us on that area of the report. I do not know which of you will take the initiative. Maria, perhaps you can start us off.

We will come to that recommendation. Thank you. Another question that arose is in relation to what you said about an annually recurring citizens panel. Was that born out of your experience? Did you imagine Parliament hosting a weekend event like the one in which you all participated, or did you imagine a different framework for the annual citizens panel? In your suggestion, it would almost be leading the way and setting the agenda for what would follow in local panels and communities. Would it have a life of its own or would it have, as your panel did, a genesis here in the Parliament?

This cannot become just a dialogue between you and me, Mr Sweeney, but I should point out that the commission on parliamentary reform looked at the matter, too, and there was quite strong resistance from the Government to allowing things to be that open, arguing that it would lead to less constructive answers to questions.

I should say that, in the 2011 to 2016 parliamentary session, I was able to attend Parliament open days in Oban, Dumfries and Stornoway. The Stornoway one was very well supported by the public; indeed, several hundred people attended the evening event, but perhaps that was because we were on one of the islands and the whole concept of the Parliament going there was very much seen differently.

David, I cannot remember—were you on the Public Petitions Committee at that point?

That was the Oban one.

As it happens, I sit on the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body, which is entrusted with running the functional aspects of the Parliament. One of the groups that we hear from is the Parliament’s educational unit, which engages with schools. For the past few months, that unit has been involved in trying to understand how to reach the many schools that do not currently seek to participate with the Parliament. We get lots of educational groups coming to the Parliament—if you watch the chamber, you might see them in the lower section of the public gallery—but it is often the same schools that come every year. Lots of schools do not come.

Gillian, you said that that issue needs to be looked at in some detail. You talk about potential mentorships and internships—which can sometimes be controversial, because people feel that it is unpaid labour or whatever—and more competitions. However, you felt that the group in the Parliament that is currently looking at that is right to do so, because there is a need to think of different ways to encourage the active interest of young people.

That is a practical example of how it would make a difference.

Maria, you talked about plain and transparent language. I was struck that, in a way, you were also arguing that, even if we accept all the recommendations at face value, that should not in itself be the basis on which we proceed. Work will need to be done to understand whether people accept that and believe that those things will make the difference. Is that what you were trying to suggest?

Yes, but there is a distinction between that and potentially engaging with the parliamentary apparatus.

We will talk about cross-party groups later. I am interested in the importance that is attached to that. Of course, the Parliament does not really facilitate cross-party groups, so that might be something in the report that needs to be looked at again.

We will move on to the next section of the report, which is about how Parliament uses deliberative democracy. Our discussion on that will be led by Ronnie Paterson and John Sultman. Which of you will kick off?