Seòmar agus comataidhean

To ask the Scottish Government what its assessment is of the impact on Scotland’s economic growth of the increase in employer national insurance contributions. (S6O-04774)

Experts, councils, providers and care organisations across Scotland have all reacted with deep concern about the financial viability of care homes given the increase. When Lesley de Jager from the Coalition of Care and Support Providers in Scotland recently gave evidence to the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee, she stated:

“‘Devastating’ and ‘catastrophic’ are the two words that I would use to describe the impact that it has had on our members.”—[Official Report, Health, Social Care and Sport Committee, 20 May 2025; c17.]

Does the Deputy First Minister agree that this is an extremely worrying and uncertain time for the sector and that, yet again, it is the most vulnerable people in our society who will be hit the hardest by this disastrous Labour United Kingdom Government decision?

I welcome the opportunity to contribute to today’s debate on planning and to respond to the motion on the Lomond Banks development at Balloch. The proposal from Flamingo Land Ltd would undoubtedly bring a significant leisure and tourism development to Balloch but, although investment and tourism are always welcome, we have to ask ourselves what kind of development we want in our national parks and what we are willing to sacrifice in the process. Scotland’s planning system must balance development and investment with our commitments to leadership on the climate, biodiversity and the integrity of our natural environment.

Loch Lomond, which is the largest inland stretch of water in Great Britain by surface area, has long held a cherished place in the heart of Scotland’s natural and cultural heritage, and nowhere can that be seen more than in the loch’s immortalisation in the traditional Scottish ballad “The Bonnie Banks of Loch Lomond”—a poignant song that has become a proud symbol of Scottish identity worldwide.

The loch’s natural beauty is unparalleled. With more than 30 islands dotting its vast expanse and the majestic Ben Lomond rising from its eastern shore, the scenery captivates visitors all year round. Rich woodlands, tranquil waters and diverse wildlife create a haven for outdoor enthusiasts, nature lovers and artists. However, Loch Lomond’s importance goes beyond tourism and natural splendour. It embodies Scotland’s spirit: resilient, welcoming and proud.

It is fair to say that the proposed Lomond Banks development by Flamingo Land Ltd has drawn considerable public attention since the application was first submitted. Eliciting a record 155,000 objections that raised significant and wide-reaching concerns, it ignited a wave of concern that extends far beyond Scotland’s shores. Tens of thousands have spoken out—locals and environmentalists alike—all driven by a deep love for one of the most iconic landscapes in the world. Their voices all echoed the shared truth that Loch Lomond is much more than just a place; it is a symbol of natural beauty, heritage and national pride. This passionate response shows just how deeply people care and why the area must be safeguarded for future generations.

Although my constituency sits many miles from the banks of Loch Lomond, the response there has been just as ardent. I have received countless emails from constituents, which universally express outrage at and condemnation of the proposals. I strongly believe that the proposed development would be an overdevelopment of the site that would have a disproportionate impact on the landscape and the environment. There could be a sympathetic planning application that would lead to the restoration of the grade A-listed Woodbank house, which is a central feature of the site that is on the buildings at risk register, in addition to the reuse of other listed buildings on the site, but I do not believe that this is the application to do that.

I very much welcome yesterday’s announcement confirming that the appeal regarding the Lomond Banks proposal has been recalled by the Scottish ministers. It is our duty not merely to weigh the merits of the planning application in isolation but to consider its wider consequences for the natural world, future generations and Scotland’s national identity. It is vital that our planning system earns and keeps the public’s trust. People need to know that their views matter, that environmental concerns are being heard and that planning decisions are always fair, open and unbiased. Recalling the appeal is about ensuring exactly that.

The escalation to ministers for thorough reassessment will allow fresh consideration of environmental safeguards, flood risk management, infrastructure capacity and community sentiment. Their engagement with statutory bodies, including SEPA, Loch Lomond and the Trossachs National Park Authority and local authorities, will ensure that every technical and local concern is rigorously evaluated.

We are here to support responsible development, we believe in sustainable tourism and we stand for a planning system that is built on fairness, justice and long-term care for our country. Recalling the Lomond Banks appeal reflects those values, and it shows that Scotland is serious about protecting our most iconic places and making the planning system work for people and nature.

To ask the Scottish Government when the constitution secretary last met, and will next meet, with United Kingdom Government ministers. (S6O-04739)

Labour said many things before it came to power, but, as we know, its performance in government has been found wanting. It spoke about the reset and better co-operation between the UK Government and the Scottish Government, but it is content to keep the Tories’ United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020; it refused to share draft texts with devolved Governments before its agreement with the EU; and it has sold out our fishing communities. Is it not the case that the reset is just another broken electoral pledge that has been made to the people of Scotland?

I thank all my colleagues who have participated in the debate. The work of the Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee on citizen participation has been so long running that only the convener and I have lasted long enough on the committee to see it through from the start—although I am not going as far back as Jackson Carlaw did today, when he referred to ancient Greece. Having been on the committee since the start of this work, it has been a pleasure to be here this afternoon and to listen to a debate that, in many ways, is the culmination of our work.

Before I begin, I want to share some comments about the process from people who took part in the people’s panels. From the evaluation reports, we know that the vast majority of people found participating in a panel to be a positive experience. That is summed up in this comment, which we received from a member of one of the panels:

“I would strongly recommend anyone who is selected to go on a People's Panel in the future to participate as it is a great experience and a unique opportunity.”

There is also clear evidence that members of the panels found that the process increased their understanding of the work of the Parliament. One said:

“Interacting with diverse individuals, listening to their views and challenges gave me an overall perspective about the democratic process.”

In this afternoon’s speeches, Jackson Carlaw, the minister Jamie Hepburn, Maggie Chapman and Foysol Choudhury all highlighted the satisfaction of participants who took part in the people’s panels and backed that up with some powerful quotations. On Christine Grahame’s point about reaching people who had not engaged at all previously, we know that at least one of the members of the panels had never voted before and yet took part in the panel and not only engaged with the process but has continued to engage with the parliamentary process, as can be seen by their presence in the public gallery today.

On Stephen Kerr’s point about the extent to which a group of only 25 people can have a positive impact on the wider disenchantment with politics, as the convener said, panels are not the only answer but they play an important role. As for the rest of Stephen Kerr’s 15-minute speech, I was waiting on him bringing out his Reform Party membership.

My committee colleague Maurice Golden made important points about trust in politics, a theme that was also picked up by Maggie Chapman. They both made the point that we must look to ourselves when it comes to the decline in trust in politicians. Martin Whitfield spoke about further developing proposals and said that continuous improvement and innovation are an important part of what our committee wants to see. Evelyn Tweed spoke about a targeted approach for marginalised groups and communities. One of the benefits of embedding people’s panels would be that that would also embed and renew our skills of facilitating deliberative events, so that we can use them in a range of participation approaches. That also touches on points that Oliver Mundell and Christine Grahame made about ensuring that we continue to seek ways to engage with the widest possible range of people across committees’ scrutiny work.

Although, as I have said, this debate is in some ways the culmination of the committee’s work, it is hoped that it is also just the start of the next phase of the Parliament’s approach. Should the Parliament agree to the motion, officials will prepare for four panels to take place in session 7, in line with the approach that is set out in the blueprint. I want to use my time this afternoon to speak more about the future of that work and how it will evolve.

The blueprint sets out a number of principles for best practice in deliberative work, notably that the process should be transparent and that deliberative approaches should support scrutiny. It also sets out more detailed principles for the use of people’s panels. Those cover how the panels should be used to support committee work, how topics should be selected and how panels should be delivered. The blueprint is clear that

“The primary purpose of People’s Panels is to contribute to informed and evidenced scrutiny”.

We have heard today some fantastic examples of how panels have contributed to scrutiny so far. If the Parliament endorses the blueprint, officials will use the knowledge that has been gathered from the panels to date to ensure that committees in session 7 have the tools and the information that they need to get the most out of people’s panels.

The blueprint also sets out the expectation that committees will give a considered response to recommendations from a panel and make the fullest possible use of panel recommendations in their own scrutiny work. That does not mean that committees are obliged to accept all the recommendations that a panel makes, but they should give the work of the panel proper consideration. With only one panel being convened per year, it is vital that committees make the best possible use of that resource. Again, officials will ensure that committees have the information, tools and resources to do that.

Principles for topic selection are set out in the blueprint and are based on criteria that were developed by Professor Stephen Elstub during his academic fellowship with the Scottish Parliament. Professor Elstub was the first of several academics to undertake fellowship projects and evaluation contracts, and I extend my thanks to all the academics who have supported the development of the blueprint. Their work not only helps us to be sure that we are guided by solid principles and meet best practice standards, but supports innovation and continuous improvement and helps us to communicate and extend our reach.

With regard to delivery of the panels, the principles that the blueprint sets out underline some of the key elements of a panel, which include randomised selection, robust safeguarding and reducing barriers to participation. The principles also make it clear that the high quality of panels must be maintained. Crucially, the principles also set out that

“The question chosen and evidence given to Panels should meet high standards of transparency and legitimacy. The breadth and balance of evidence should take account of different kinds of expertise including specialists, advocates and those with lived experience.”

Our report and blueprint also set out areas where we think that there is potential to further develop our approach to people’s panels. Continuing to innovate and evaluate is an important part of the approach that we have set out, and we are clear that there should be further consideration at the end of session 7 of what the approach should be for session 8 and beyond.

One key area involves finding effective ways to harness the enthusiasm that people feel when they take part in a panel in order to give them the confidence to engage with Parliament more widely, and to increase their enthusiasm for doing so. We know from the evaluation that, when people take part in a panel, most of them will feel enthused about the work of the Parliament and their role in it afterwards. Not everyone can take part in a panel, but finding ways to work with participants to spread their increased knowledge and confidence more widely will ensure that the resources that are invested in people’s panels have the greatest possible impact.

As Scotland’s national Parliament, we are one of its most high-profile public organisations. We are well connected to other legislatures that are using deliberative approaches, and we know from those connections that we are somewhat ahead of the game. We might consider, therefore, our role among Scotland’s public bodies. How much do those bodies connect, collaborate and share information on how they use deliberative methods, and how might we balance our ability to be a role model to those bodies with our need to carry out scrutiny of how Scotland’s public services are being delivered?

Another area for further development is understanding how we might increase the use of deliberative models on a smaller scale, outside the people’s panel model. With a new session on the horizon, committees should be using the full range of tools that are available to them. I will give two examples of past work on which they might build.

We have already seen a precedent for using deliberative work to involve people in the Parliament’s budget scrutiny process. The Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee used such an approach in 2023 to empower participants from the whole family equality project to put questions to the Minister for Equalities, Migration and Refugees as part of the committee’s pre-budget scrutiny.

I note that, in the debate of 22 May on the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee’s inquiry into committee effectiveness, there was an emphasis on the need for committees to spend more time on the careful development of their work programmes and scoping inquiries. The issue of reflecting the interests of the public was also raised. In session 5, the Local Government and Communities Committee did just that—it used an online deliberative platform to understand public priorities in community wellbeing, which led to post-legislative scrutiny of the Community Empowerment (Scotland) Act 2015.

The final area for further development that I will highlight involves tracking the impact and outcomes of panels, in relation both to scrutiny impact and to the impact on participants over time. Tracking impact over time is a long-standing challenge. In the context of scrutiny, it has come up as part of the evidence that the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee heard during its committee effectiveness inquiry. There are no easy answers, but it will be important for panels to reflect any applicable recommendations from that committee’s inquiry in their approach.

We have spoken a lot about deliberative democracy in the form of people’s panels this afternoon so, before I conclude, I will come back to the other part of our report’s title, and indeed that of the debate: “embedding”. If panels are to reach their full potential and deliver in the way that we hope they can, they cannot be a “nice to have” or an afterthought to other work; they must be fully embedded in the work of the Parliament. I have already spoken a bit about what that might mean for committees that want a panel to support their scrutiny work; it also means that panels should be embedded in the Parliament’s wider work, looking at participation, engagement and effective scrutiny. All those aspects of our work should complement and support each other.

If we get it right, I believe that that approach can have a transformational effect on the work of the Parliament and, most importantly of all, on the relationship that the people of Scotland have with their Parliament, and their trust and involvement in it.

I thank all my colleagues who have participated in the debate. The work of the Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee on citizen participation has been so long running that only the convener and I have lasted long enough on the committee to see it through from the start—although I am not going as far back as Jackson Carlaw did today, when he referred to ancient Greece. Having been on the committee since the start of this work, it has been a pleasure to be here this afternoon and to listen to a debate that, in many ways, is the culmination of our work.

Before I begin, I want to share some comments about the process from people who took part in the people’s panels. From the evaluation reports, we know that the vast majority of people found participating in a panel to be a positive experience. That is summed up in this comment, which we received from a member of one of the panels:

“I would strongly recommend anyone who is selected to go on a People's Panel in the future to participate as it is a great experience and a unique opportunity.”

There is also clear evidence that members of the panels found that the process increased their understanding of the work of the Parliament. One said:

“Interacting with diverse individuals, listening to their views and challenges gave me an overall perspective about the democratic process.”

In this afternoon’s speeches, Jackson Carlaw, the minister Jamie Hepburn, Maggie Chapman and Foysol Choudhury all highlighted the satisfaction of participants who took part in the people’s panels and backed that up with some powerful quotations. On Christine Grahame’s point about reaching people who had not engaged at all previously, we know that at least one of the members of the panels had never voted before and yet took part in the panel and not only engaged with the process but has continued to engage with the parliamentary process, as can be seen by their presence in the public gallery today.

On Stephen Kerr’s point about the extent to which a group of only 25 people can have a positive impact on the wider disenchantment with politics, as the convener said, panels are not the only answer but they play an important role. As for the rest of Stephen Kerr’s 15-minute speech, I was waiting on him bringing out his Reform Party membership.

My committee colleague Maurice Golden made important points about trust in politics, a theme that was also picked up by Maggie Chapman. They both made the point that we must look to ourselves when it comes to the decline in trust in politicians. Martin Whitfield spoke about further developing proposals and said that continuous improvement and innovation are an important part of what our committee wants to see. Evelyn Tweed spoke about a targeted approach for marginalised groups and communities. One of the benefits of embedding people’s panels would be that that would also embed and renew our skills of facilitating deliberative events, so that we can use them in a range of participation approaches. That also touches on points that Oliver Mundell and Christine Grahame made about ensuring that we continue to seek ways to engage with the widest possible range of people across committees’ scrutiny work.

Although, as I have said, this debate is in some ways the culmination of the committee’s work, it is hoped that it is also just the start of the next phase of the Parliament’s approach. Should the Parliament agree to the motion, officials will prepare for four panels to take place in session 7, in line with the approach that is set out in the blueprint. I want to use my time this afternoon to speak more about the future of that work and how it will evolve.

The blueprint sets out a number of principles for best practice in deliberative work, notably that the process should be transparent and that deliberative approaches should support scrutiny. It also sets out more detailed principles for the use of people’s panels. Those cover how the panels should be used to support committee work, how topics should be selected and how panels should be delivered. The blueprint is clear that

“The primary purpose of People’s Panels is to contribute to informed and evidenced scrutiny”.

We have heard today some fantastic examples of how panels have contributed to scrutiny so far. If the Parliament endorses the blueprint, officials will use the knowledge that has been gathered from the panels to date to ensure that committees in session 7 have the tools and the information that they need to get the most out of people’s panels.

The blueprint also sets out the expectation that committees will give a considered response to recommendations from a panel and make the fullest possible use of panel recommendations in their own scrutiny work. That does not mean that committees are obliged to accept all the recommendations that a panel makes, but they should give the work of the panel proper consideration. With only one panel being convened per year, it is vital that committees make the best possible use of that resource. Again, officials will ensure that committees have the information, tools and resources to do that.

Principles for topic selection are set out in the blueprint and are based on criteria that were developed by Professor Stephen Elstub during his academic fellowship with the Scottish Parliament. Professor Elstub was the first of several academics to undertake fellowship projects and evaluation contracts, and I extend my thanks to all the academics who have supported the development of the blueprint. Their work not only helps us to be sure that we are guided by solid principles and meet best practice standards, but supports innovation and continuous improvement and helps us to communicate and extend our reach.

With regard to delivery of the panels, the principles that the blueprint sets out underline some of the key elements of a panel, which include randomised selection, robust safeguarding and reducing barriers to participation. The principles also make it clear that the high quality of panels must be maintained. Crucially, the principles also set out that

“The question chosen and evidence given to Panels should meet high standards of transparency and legitimacy. The breadth and balance of evidence should take account of different kinds of expertise including specialists, advocates and those with lived experience.”

Our report and blueprint also set out areas where we think that there is potential to further develop our approach to people’s panels. Continuing to innovate and evaluate is an important part of the approach that we have set out, and we are clear that there should be further consideration at the end of session 7 of what the approach should be for session 8 and beyond.

One key area involves finding effective ways to harness the enthusiasm that people feel when they take part in a panel in order to give them the confidence to engage with Parliament more widely, and to increase their enthusiasm for doing so. We know from the evaluation that, when people take part in a panel, most of them will feel enthused about the work of the Parliament and their role in it afterwards. Not everyone can take part in a panel, but finding ways to work with participants to spread their increased knowledge and confidence more widely will ensure that the resources that are invested in people’s panels have the greatest possible impact.

As Scotland’s national Parliament, we are one of its most high-profile public organisations. We are well connected to other legislatures that are using deliberative approaches, and we know from those connections that we are somewhat ahead of the game. We might consider, therefore, our role among Scotland’s public bodies. How much do those bodies connect, collaborate and share information on how they use deliberative methods, and how might we balance our ability to be a role model to those bodies with our need to carry out scrutiny of how Scotland’s public services are being delivered?

Another area for further development is understanding how we might increase the use of deliberative models on a smaller scale, outside the people’s panel model. With a new session on the horizon, committees should be using the full range of tools that are available to them. I will give two examples of past work on which they might build.

We have already seen a precedent for using deliberative work to involve people in the Parliament’s budget scrutiny process. The Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee used such an approach in 2023 to empower participants from the whole family equality project to put questions to the Minister for Equalities, Migration and Refugees as part of the committee’s pre-budget scrutiny.

I note that, in the debate of 22 May on the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee’s inquiry into committee effectiveness, there was an emphasis on the need for committees to spend more time on the careful development of their work programmes and scoping inquiries. The issue of reflecting the interests of the public was also raised. In session 5, the Local Government and Communities Committee did just that—it used an online deliberative platform to understand public priorities in community wellbeing, which led to post-legislative scrutiny of the Community Empowerment (Scotland) Act 2015.

The final area for further development that I will highlight involves tracking the impact and outcomes of panels, in relation both to scrutiny impact and to the impact on participants over time. Tracking impact over time is a long-standing challenge. In the context of scrutiny, it has come up as part of the evidence that the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee heard during its committee effectiveness inquiry. There are no easy answers, but it will be important for panels to reflect any applicable recommendations from that committee’s inquiry in their approach.

We have spoken a lot about deliberative democracy in the form of people’s panels this afternoon so, before I conclude, I will come back to the other part of our report’s title, and indeed that of the debate: “embedding”. If panels are to reach their full potential and deliver in the way that we hope they can, they cannot be a “nice to have” or an afterthought to other work; they must be fully embedded in the work of the Parliament. I have already spoken a bit about what that might mean for committees that want a panel to support their scrutiny work; it also means that panels should be embedded in the Parliament’s wider work, looking at participation, engagement and effective scrutiny. All those aspects of our work should complement and support each other.

If we get it right, I believe that that approach can have a transformational effect on the work of the Parliament and, most importantly of all, on the relationship that the people of Scotland have with their Parliament, and their trust and involvement in it.

On Maggie Chapman’s point about panels being too expensive, £55,000 per panel is 0.054 per cent of the Scottish Parliament budget. Do you agree that that is well worth it to ensure the participation and engagement of the Scottish public?

Although the agreement, which goes some way to improving some of the harms of Brexit, has to be welcomed, will the minister highlight for members how remaining outside the single market and the customs union, and without freedom of movement, continues to damage the interests of our rural economy?

Will the minister set out the extent to which, under Labour, the Barnettisation of agricultural funding has impacted on the progress of those initiatives?