Chamber and committees

No, but it is something that should be prioritised.

I was just trying to save the time.

Do you have any examples of such buildings?

It is no problem. Several of my constituents have written to me about the length of time that they have been staying in temporary accommodation. I am sure that they have been writing to all of us. Can we also invite the minister to the committee, because it is an on-going and big issue.

It is a great honour to speak in today’s debate. My colleague Daniel Johnson and I come from a business background, and Colin Smyth has a background in economic issues.

I am proud of Scotland’s history of business and entrepreneurship. When I ran businesses, I was lucky enough to meet many successful innovators and entrepreneurs who had an idea and who worked hard to make it succeed. Although the proportion of Scottish businesses that are innovating by introducing or developing a new product, service or process has fallen from 50 to 22 per cent in the past 10 years, Scotland is brimming with potential to create a new generation of entrepreneurs in various sectors.

Edinburgh has growing finance and technology sectors that employ tens of thousands of people and are innovating in ways that can be applied across our economy. Taking advantage of those sectors and allowing talent to thrive are key if we want to remain competitive.

The most recent data from Scottish Enterprise shows that the Government is the most frequent investor by deal count in Scotland. Keeping in mind how agencies such as Scottish Enterprise and the Scottish National Investment Bank contribute to innovation and growth should be a priority.

Scotland’s investment and innovation system is complex and it lacks a focused economic strategy. We should be removing complexity for businesses and introducing a single point of contact across the Government for international investors, to make Scotland the most attractive part of the UK in which to operate.

Grant funding from those agencies should also be used more effectively to scale up businesses. Areas in which innovation has a key role to play, such as renewables and hydrogen, are forming an increasingly large part of our economy as we transition to net zero. If we cannot scale up those effectively, we will be left behind.

The last point that I will talk about is skills. Developing a culture of innovation and entrepreneurship is a whole-system issue on which the Government, businesses and education can all work together to deliver in the areas in which we have an advantage, such as tech. Every year, Scotland is creating around 13,000 digital skills jobs, but we are producing only 5,000 graduates to fill them. The Government can be a bridge between business and education to deliver the graduates that businesses need. That involves providing opportunities in tech skills in secondary and further education by increasing the number of computer science teachers. It involves increasing co-operation among our business schools to ensure that graduates are ready for the modern economy, and it involves enabling workers to reskill.

Scotland has the talent to innovate in new and exciting ways that will grow our economy, but we must act to ensure that talent is channelled and supported so that entrepreneurs and innovators can do what they do best.

Last month, it was announced that the scope of the review of Creative Scotland would be widened. As the cabinet secretary will be aware, the review was originally announced in September last year. It has taken the Scottish Government more than eight months to widen its remit. When did the cabinet secretary realise that the remit needed to be expanded? By how much is that expansion likely to increase the cost of the review?

I join other members in thanking the clerks and parliamentary staff who assisted with the work on people’s panels, including those who supported their operation. I also thank the researchers who completed the evaluation of the people’s panels that were held during this session.

We often hear about the bubble that supposedly surrounds Holyrood, whereby members of the public feel disconnected from decisions made on their behalf that affect their lives and priorities. That disconnect is well documented, with polling showing that people’s trust in politics and politicians is falling. Through the committee’s work on improving participation, we have endeavoured to break down those barriers and move towards having a system that builds understanding.

When the subject was last brought to the chamber in 2023, after the committee published its report on public participation, one recommendation was for the launch of two people’s panels. Two such panels have now been completed: one on drug harm and deaths and the other on post-legislative scrutiny of the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009.

Looking at the results of the work of both panels, we can see that the deliberative approach that the committee recommended has been successful in informing both the Government and the Parliament, and has been welcomed by those who took part in the panels. The Scottish Government accepted 18 of the 19 recommendations made by the people’s panel on drug harm and deaths. Its work also informed the questioning of ministers, and it was praised by members and also in its evaluation. The recommendations of the people’s panel on climate change were accepted by the Net Zero, Energy and Transport Committee and will be implemented in the Scottish Government’s strategy.

The evaluation of the people’s panel shows that those who took part not only gained knowledge of major issues that Scotland faces but had their estimation improved of the Scottish Parliament and its work. Seventy-five per cent reported that they would get involved in the work of the Parliament in the future—including one woman who described herself as “a serial non recycler” saying that she was seriously considering setting up a climate action group in her community. That is welcome, of course, and, if our target is to improve trust and participation in politics, can be considered a success. However, participants reported only a moderate level of confidence in the political impact of the panel.

We should be clear that the success of deliberative democracy depends on the ability of Parliament and Government to seriously listen and put recommendations into action. If the public believe that they are completing a pointless exercise, the results will be worse and the benefit lessened, leaving us back at square 1. That is why I welcome the clause in the blueprint for participation that recommends that committees seek responses from the Scottish Government and commit to

“giving a considered and reasoned response”

to all the panel’s recommendations.

That brings me to my final point, which is about tracking the impact of people’s panels. It is important that participants are well informed of the workings of the Scottish Parliament and about how their recommendations may be implemented. If the work is continued in session 7, improving the tracking of impacts in the long and short term could help to inform future practice on the impact of expectation of participants, and allow for consistent readjustment of the deliberation process.

Ultimately, the power to rebuild trust in politics relies on us. It relies on MSPs being out and visible in our communities, listening to people’s concerns. People’s panels are not a panacea for rebuilding trust in politics or solving complex issues. However, the evaluation of both panels that have completed this session shows that they have a serious role to play in informing scrutiny and delivering improved public participation. I hope that members agree that we should look to take that further next session by embedding people’s panels into the work of the Parliament and building a new process of deliberation with the people of Scotland at its heart.

The proposed cuts are causing massive concern, particularly for mental health services, which are estimated to save £7 for every pound invested. The EIJB recognises that cuts to Thrive mental health contracts could increase pressure on services and leave users without support. Does the minister agree that that goes against the Scottish Government’s target of prevention? Will she meet me and the cross-party group of MSPs to find a solution?

I extend my thanks to the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee for its work on the inquiry so far.

With our Parliament having no upper house, the work of the committees is extremely important in the scrutiny of legislation, in holding ministers to account and in bringing forward issues that matter to the public. I believe that the work of our committees can show the very best of Parliament. They were envisioned as being the engine of Parliament, but any good engine needs to be serviced.

I am a member of the Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee, which, in my biased view, is one of the best committees in Parliament. We can directly respond to and raise constituents’ concerns across portfolios. We have a varied programme—last November, we published our inquiry into the dualling of the A9, while, this week, we considered the microchipping of cats.

However, one problem that the petitions committee faces is that its membership is currently all male. We frequently hear and respond to petitions that relate to issues of which we have no lived experience. Although members often join us to give evidence on issues where they have an interest, we should be looking to embed that in the structure of the committee by mandating that no committee can be single-sex.

The evidence given highlighted the value of collaboration when members can allow themselves to put party politics aside and work together towards a committee’s common goal. The size of committees, some of which have up to 11 members, was mentioned as possibly hindering that collaboration. The petitions committee is small, with only five members, which I believe has allowed us to be agile in our work and to become less bogged down in small issues.

Electing conveners could also improve the efficiency of committees. It could give them a mandate to pursue their priorities and could motivate them to share their views about the committee’s future work in order to persuade others to vote for them. Electing conveners could also increase the profile of committees, turning them into the independent engines of Parliament that they were intended to be.

In summary, although our committees do great work, we should be looking to improve them. That could most easily be done by ending single-sex committees, but there are opportunities in bringing in elected conveners and enhancing committee powers. I again thank the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee for its work on this matter and look forward to seeing its final report in the autumn.

Following the tragic death of a 16-year-old boy from East Kilbride last week, three young people have now been killed in stabbing incidents in the past year. Since March, there have been 11 stabbings involving young people, including multiple instances in Portobello. Such incidents are destroying lives and traumatising communities, and the problem seems to be getting worse. Last year, the police seized 248 weapons in schools. Will the First Minister intervene? Will he request that the Scottish Violence Reduction Unit incentivise its efforts? Will he say that enough is enough? Will his Government deliver youth work and policing that reach out to young people to help to prevent further incidents?