Chamber and committees

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?

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?

To ask the First Minister, in light of recent reported incidents, how the Scottish Government is working to prevent knife crime. (S6F-04110)

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.

Before Mr Torrance jumps in, I want to say that I totally agree with everything that the petitioner has said. Microchipping should be compulsory, because a cat is not only a cat—it is part of a family, too. If the proposal means that cats that are lost are brought back home, we should all support it.

We should write to the Scottish Government to ask whether, in light of the Scottish Animal Welfare Commission’s report and the new requirement in England, it will introduce legislation to mandate the microchipping and registration of cats in this parliamentary session.

Why do we not find out how many there are?

We should keep the petition open and write to the Minister for Social Care, Mental Wellbeing and Sport to ask, in light of the expectations that the Scottish Government has set, how it monitors implementation of the transition care planning guidance, CAMHS transition protocols and the transition care plan template, and whether the Scottish Government has gathered feedback from young people and their families following transition between child and adult mental health services.

The SPS agreement that was announced in yesterday’s summit cuts red tape, will save businesses thousands in fees and has been welcomed across the food and drink sector. What impact will the SPS agreement have on Scotland’s food and drink exports and how it will support the Scotland Food & Drink partnership’s ambition for food and drink to be a £20 billion sector?

In a changed world, it is more important than ever that we keep relationships with our partners around the world strong, and that we work in areas of mutual interest to meet goals that benefit our security and our economies. Following years of our international standings declining under the Conservatives at Westminster, it is positive that we now have a UK Government that is working to rebuild those relationships and is open about the value of international co-operation.

Last week saw Scotland and Europe mark the 80th anniversary of VE day. Such memories of war act as a stark reminder of what can happen when we fail to work with our international colleagues. That is why I welcome the holding of the first UK-EU summit next week, when we can cement our new relationship. As the Prime Minister has said, we should “look forward, not back” and work to build a new strategic partnership with the EU to benefit Scotland’s economy, defence and public safety.

On our economy, I am pleased to see consensus reached with the UK Government on the importance of an SPS agreement. Of all the parts of the United Kingdom, Scotland exports the most food and drink, and that sector is worth £16 billion to our economy. However, since the Tories’ Brexit deal, we have seen our agri-food trade with the EU fall by 29 per cent for meat exports and 26 per cent for dairy. In the Constitution, Europe, External Affairs and Culture Committee’s review of the trade and co-operation agreement we saw the impact that the situation is having on businesses, in that imports are taking far longer and costs are going up.

It has been estimated that achieving a veterinary agreement will increase exports by at least 22.5 per cent. That delivers what businesses want as soon as possible—not in several years’ time.

On defence, with threats to Scotland and the United Kingdom greater than they have been in previous years, co-operation is also key. The European Union has been taking a greater role in defence in recent years, following Putin’s illegal invasion of Ukraine. Formal collaboration will be key to supporting security across the continent but will also be important to Scotland’s defence sector, which will be bolstered by the UK Labour Government’s increase in defence spending. That investment will boost Scotland’s industry and defence sector, which employs thousands of people.

The industry has told the Westminster Defence Committee that collaboration is vital to sustain capacity at home and our competitiveness in global markets. It also says that we have an opportunity to engage in a strategic conversation on defence with the EU, due to the renewed relationship that the UK Government is pursuing. That is what a positive future with the EU looks like.

Scotland also benefits from positive and collaborative relationships with non-EU countries. The trade deal with India that was announced last week will add to the £600 million of exports that we currently achieve and give Scotland unique access to one of the world’s fastest-growing economies. The deal will benefit Scottish businesses by lowering tariffs in areas in which we are leaders, such as whisky. The Scotch Whisky Association said that it was “transformational”, increasing exports by £1 billion over the next five years and creating jobs.

Those actions—rebuilding our relationship with Europe, improving our security and defence and securing trade deals that boost the Scottish economy—demonstrate the power of international co-operation and the fact that we are taking a pragmatic approach to tackling the challenges that we face. They show that, if we want to be successful in delivering for Scotland’s people, we must look to the future and work together when it is in the best interests of our country to do so. Further, they prove the value of stepping up to deliver, not sniping from the sidelines or picking sides.