Seòmar agus comataidhean

Good morning and welcome to the sixth meeting in 2022 of the Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee.

We have a busy agenda this morning, and we start with a declaration of interests. Since we last met, Ruth Maguire has left the committee. I thank her for the work that she did in the short time she was with us, and I wish her well in the committee to which I understand she has now progressed. We are delighted to welcome Fergus Ewing MSP to the committee in her place.

Fergus, in the time-honoured tradition with which I am sure you are familiar, the floor is yours as we invite you to declare any interests that might be relevant to the committee.

For item 2, we will take evidence from a Scottish Government expert group—the institutionalising participatory and deliberative democracy working group, which I will refer to as the IPDD group from now on. It was established last summer and, in March this year, it published a report that set out a number of recommendations on how to

“make Scotland’s democracy more participative and inclusive.”

That is very relevant to the consideration that the committee is currently giving to that area as part of our remit.

I am delighted to welcome three members of the group. Kelly McBride, who is deliberative democracy lead with TPXimpact, is joining us in person. We also have Fiona Garven, who is director of the Scottish Community Development Centre, and Talat Yaqoob, who is an independent consultant and researcher, joining us online. Welcome to you all.

I understand that Kelly McBride has offered to determine who is best placed to answer each of our questions. For those of you participating virtually, if you put an R in the chat box, that will let the clerks know that you wish to come in.

We have a number of areas that we are keen to explore with the group. These follow on from our first evidence session with witnesses, who were from a broad spectrum, both internationally and here in the United Kingdom, with an expertise in this area.

We want to look at the operation of the group, the definitions that you have identified and the benefits of participatory and deliberative democracy. There is a section in the report that talks about the risks and the committee is keen to understand what the unforeseen consequences might be even of being successful in a deliberative democracy exercise. Some of the risks appear to be identified as risks that could come about if we do not succeed well enough, but there could be others too.

We also want to look at the group’s vision and recommendations and the next steps, because we are looking forward to receiving the Scottish Government’s response at some point, as I know you will be too.

We may also want to get some idea of the extent to which the Scottish Government left the group to do its own work and the extent to which you felt that you were getting encouraged to look at particular areas, which might then lead you to anticipate the nature of the response you might receive.

In so far as you are aware, how was the membership of the group established? Also, to what extent did the Scottish Government have any input into the thinking as it developed in the group once it was established?

Would Talat Yaqoob like to say anything on the construction of the group?

Thank you. As the consummate professional that you are, you anticipated where I was going to go with my next question. I was interested to know why the standards documents stand to one side. The theme is broadly similar to the one that you articulated in relation to some of the recommendations. We will probably touch on some of the groups, such as young people, who you mentioned.

You have set the scene on how the group operated, how the recommendations arose and what you thought the limits not of the recommendations but of the force behind them might have been. As we have discovered in our consideration of the issues, there are many voices to be considered in all of this, and although it may well be fortuitous if they come to similar views, we want to see whether that is actually what happens, rather than necessarily insisting that it be the case.

We will move on discuss the definitions, which are very interesting, with some questions from David Torrance.

That means a rather extended time before we can consider the petition in any informed way, but that is probably the right course of action. Are colleagues content with that suggestion?

Members indicated agreement.

Fiona Garven, do you want to add anything?

Kelly McBride wants to come back in.

As we are coming towards the end of our time for this session, I ask Fergus Ewing to move on to the final questions, which are about the next steps and the Government’s reaction.

Welcome back. Item 3 is consideration of continued petitions. PE1723, on essential tremor treatment in Scotland, was lodged by Mary Ramsay. The petition, which was last considered by the committee on 19 January, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to raise awareness of essential tremor and to support the introduction and use of a focused ultrasound scanner for treating people in Scotland who have the condition.

Rhoda Grant will be joining us again.

When we last considered the petition, we agreed to write to the Scottish Government and the National Services Division. We have had a response from the Scottish Government that indicates that the National Services Division is expected to resume applications for the commissioning of new services this month. That was roughly the timetable that was suggested when we last considered the petition.

The National Services Division continues to engage with the clinical team in Tayside to understand what would be required to provide focused ultrasound in Scotland, should it be decided that that is the preferred option.

The Scottish Government submission informs us that

“the Scottish Government has not committed funding to the MRgFUS service in 2022/2023. The evidence base ... will inform consideration on any future financial investment.”

The Scottish Government also provided information about its work to raise awareness of essential tremor among patients and healthcare professionals.

The petitioner’s most recent submission highlights that there are 100,000 people in Scotland with essential tremor, and she has suggested that that figure does not include those who are waiting to see specialists or those who have been misdiagnosed.

Rhoda Grant is with us. We are not necessarily taking a lot of additional evidence, because we are waiting to hear what progress can be made, but would you like to contribute anything that would further our understanding?

Thank you very much for that.

I believe that we will keep the petition open. We are still awaiting some of the key information that we feel would be critical to our coming to a determination. Would colleagues like to make any further recommendations?