Chamber and committees

Yes. We have had examples of some engagement buses that go around the country, be it on behalf of major power companies or in relation to health. There are buses that cover diet and how people might live better; one came to the Parliament not so long ago that focused on liver function, and people went out to visit it. Many of those buses can expand out the sides and the whole thing can open out to create quite a big working space. We have had engagement with organisations that have invested in such operations.

However, a key point for me relates to Maria Schwarz’s point about doing more research and so on. The worst thing would be if we spent a lot of money on a bus and then sent it out to find a purpose, rather than our having an idea of what the purpose should be and then validating it through research with people on what they would like the bus to do when it was in their community. We would not want it to become a white elephant, for want of a better description, or a purple and white elephant. We would want it to do something.

I am intrigued that you see the bus as being about more than just saying, “Here’s what happens in the Parliament,” and that it would also involve saying, “We’re discussing issues in your community today and we’d like you to come along and participate in that discussion.” We would have to be careful; it could not really be a constituency surgery bus, because we could not have private conversations with people about highly personal issues that they might be struggling with. However, it could certainly be a space where we could have more open discussions.

I would not do that to you.

We can look into that idea. It is certainly one that we have not considered, even though this Parliament, particularly in its earlier years—the pandemic did not help in the previous session—has had much more proactive engagement than other Parliaments. Another idea that we will talk about is Parliament days.

Maria, you feel very personally committed to the next comment in the report, which is about the times when Parliament meets and people’s ability to engage with it. What would you like to see in that regard? Are you saying that you would like to see a Saturday sitting of the Parliament from time to time? What might you feel interested in engaging with outwith the normal working hours of the week?

That point has excited quite a bit of attention. It is an interesting issue. The commission on parliamentary reform, of which I was a member, also considered that issue, and we know that the equivalent of the Presiding Officer in the Republic of Ireland’s Parliament can say that a question has not been answered, and that is regarded as a fairly significant admonishment, which has led to that power not having to be exercised, as no one wants to be found to have fallen short of what is required of them in that regard.

There is one more recommendation in this group, which I understand that John Sultman will speak to.

I know that, often, when I am playing fantasy Presiding Officer, I consider banning the use of notes during question times. Obviously, I would have exceptions for people who require them for various reasons, but I would certainly ban ministers using notes that are read out as speeches and would allow only the use of notes as something to refer to.

I would like the Presiding Officer to have the power to say, “Minister, this is not an opportunity for you to give a speech. You are answering a question—you can refer to your note, but you can’t spend the next three minutes just reading it out.” That can be quite frustrating, because that three-minute exposition gets nowhere near answering the original question. Members get very frustrated, only to be told that the Presiding Officer has no control over what the minister has said. I therefore think that the suggestion would be a way of addressing that.

John Sultman spoke about the recommendation of a timeline for receiving responses. An issue that arose in our inquiry, but which had exercised committee colleagues before we began it, was the sense of expectation that is raised among those who participate about what will happen to the work that they do.

I wonder whether there was an understanding—perhaps Maria Schwarz has confirmed that there was—that a group of people can come forward with a series of recommendations, but that that does not necessarily mean that they can or should be pursued because, when we look into them further with other people, they might not find wider favour.

Is the suggestion about building in a process timeline a response to that concern about expectation and ensuring that there is a deliverable end result for those who have participated? Is that the reasoning?

We have a code of conduct, so I was struck by that, too. The reference to the code of conduct could cover many things. Was there something that the panel, as people watching MSPs perform, felt that the code of conduct could address that the existing code does not?

I was intrigued as to where that was coming from. I wondered whether you were identifying politicians who go and spend time in the jungle with celebrities—obviously, a Conservative politician from Westminster has done that and, previously, a Labour politician from the Scottish Parliament—or whether it was something else. You referred to the showboating of politicians in the Parliament. Dear me—I am sure that I have been accused of that from time to time. Sometimes, it is the way we keep ourselves entertained. Was the issue the absence of evidence of individuals doing a function or individuals abdicating that responsibility, or was it their conduct in undertaking that responsibility in Parliament?

One complicating issue in these matters is that half of the members of the committee, such as David Torrance and me, are elected on a first-past-the-post basis to represent a specific constituency and the other half—for example, Paul Sweeney—are elected to represent a broader region. The workstreams that we have are nuanced differently because of those different responsibilities. What might seem an appropriate diet of work for a constituency MSP is quite different from that for someone who represents a region.

I am not trying to be difficult here; I am just trying to understand what has exercised the feeling that looking at the code of conduct would be useful.

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?