Chamber and committees

That brings us to the end of our formal business. We will next convene on Wednesday 18 June. We will now move into private session.

Okay, but we do not have a lot of time. Professor Masterton absorbed some of the time that we had with his lengthy remarks.

Thank you. That was all very enlightening and academic, so let me now be pejorative. You referred to Kenneth Clark’s television series “Civilisation”, which was all very high-falutin’. At the end, you talked about developers who might have ulterior motives. I would say that I have never met a developer who does not have an ulterior motive. And when has a developer ever had a motive in the national interest? I can see that there are architects and others who aspire to create something wonderful, but the developers that I have met are looking for bang for their buck, which is why they are in business.

The impression that many people have is that, although the United States might ring out the old, ring in the new and have a complete lack of sentiment about absolutely anything—one only has to look at New York City to see all the buildings that have been ripped down and replaced with whatever could make the most money—people in this country have an attachment to a number of buildings.

For the sake of argument—I will bring in the other witnesses, too—let me say that there is a sense that developers’ interests come first and that, sometimes, our local authorities are inclined to set aside the love of buildings that might have a future purpose within a development because they are keen for the development to proceed, which it does, regardless of the building’s worth. Sometimes, it seems that the demolition has happened before anybody has had time to blink. Examples of that come up all the time, depending on which part of the country you live in. If you are in Glasgow and drive up Sauchiehall Street, you see the old ABC cinema, with its art deco frontage, being hacked to pieces. There are other examples of buildings that were not knocked down. As a boy, I remember looking at the Odeon cinema, with its art deco frontage, on Renfield Street. It is all still there, with all the office buildings and everything built on to the back.

It seems to many people that the safeguards around the assessment of the need for demolition are mysteriously bent in such a way as to make it the quick option for developers to pursue. That is what underpins the petition’s aims and the representations of our colleague Paul Sweeney, who has now joined us online. Good morning, Mr Sweeney; I am sure that we will bring you into play in due course.

I do not know how the other witnesses want to respond, but before we get to a detailed question, how would you respond to my pejorative opening gambit?

Will the member take an intervention on that point?

I make a similar point to the one that Martin Whitfield made. Whether we were in Dublin or in Paris, engaging with people in other countries or with the pilot panels that we have run here, the committee found that those who participate will accept that their ideas may not be taken forward—because that is for Parliament to decide—as long as people tell them that that is the case and why. The great cynicism and lack of trust in the process arises when people give a lot of time and effort to the process of making recommendations but are then left high and dry and never hear anything more about it. They wonder what the purpose and value of their contribution was. If we communicate back to them, whether we say yes or no, they will accept that.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. Given that there is a parliamentary by-election taking place this week, I am concerned that we should not bring the politics of that into our proceedings this afternoon. I am sure that that was not my friend’s intention, but it would be most unfortunate if it was seen in that way.

I am very grateful for that intervention, and I apologise to Christine Grahame. Her uncustomary lack of bling today meant that I did not quite catch the fact that she had stood up when she did. I see her now, even though my eyesight is failing in my advanced years.

Ms Grahame will be pleased to know that the way in which we reach out through panels specifically does what she asks. Often, the people who are randomly selected to take part have never participated in anything similar, some have never voted and some have never had any engagement in the political process at all. The way in which the members of people’s panels are selected reaches and brings in some of the very voices that Christine Grahame is concerned that we should seek to reach.

I said that the panels are not a panacea. The recommendations on the principle of deliberative democracy in people’s panels extend to the Government, too. The Government will make its own decisions on whether it wishes to pursue the idea of having a wider national forum in which people are able to participate, as happens in Ireland and Paris, and in other countries and cities that the committee visited.

Our recommendation is one for the Parliament. It is modest, because we recognise the current financial constraints. We propose that there should be four people’s panels during the next parliamentary session—one in each of the years from 2027 to 2030. Those panels should be run in line with the more detailed principles that we set out in the blueprint. The overall approach to the panels should be evaluated during session 7 in order to maintain quality, and then to determine what we might do during session 8.

That is where the question that Martin Whitfield wishes to raise is important. We have identified that the broader the subject, the less able a panel is to come to a specific conclusion. It is therefore important that the question that people are debating be tightly focused and well understood. That is what the two pilots have demonstrated. In many ways, the pilot on drugs was more successful than the one that considered the post-legislative aspects of climate change more generally. Climate change is such a huge topic that people might have been bewildered about what the focus of their inquiry should be.

We have also highlighted other areas in which we would like the work of panels to develop, particularly on ensuring that innovation and continuous improvement remain part of their approach. We are also exploring how we can best harness the extremely positive impact on individual participants in order to amplify other participation and engagement work. We have been clear that that is only one part of the overall scrutiny and engagement landscape.

I hope that I have explained to, engaged with and enthused members, as that is what I am here to do on a sunny and dry summer’s afternoon, when people’s minds stray elsewhere. However, if anyone is still unsure of the value of people’s panels, I leave them with this quote from one of the participants:

“deliberative democracy is a gift to the people of Scotland and its electorate. In Scotland, we appear to be ahead of the game compared with many countries ... In the people’s panel, we felt representative, represented, relevant and listened to”.

That is how people should feel when they engage with the Parliament; that is, in the words of one participant, the “gift” of people’s panels; and that is why I urge members to support the motion and ensure that the Scottish Parliament’s proud tradition of innovation in public participation continues incrementally and modestly in the next session of our Parliament.

I move,

That the Parliament welcomes the Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee’s 1st Report, 2025 (Session 6), A blueprint for participation - embedding deliberative democracy in the work of the Scottish Parliament (SP Paper 789), including the blueprint for this work in Session 7 with a view to making the use of such panels a regular feature of committee scrutiny from Session 7 onwards; endorses the principles for the future use of deliberative democracy that are set out in the blueprint, and acknowledges the work already being done by Parliament staff to develop and improve engagement methods.

I entirely agree with that point and will seek to address that in my contribution.

The panels look at issues where a committee feels that the input of a panel would be useful and the panel’s report and recommendations go back to that sponsoring committee to inform its scrutiny work. I am not going to claim that people’s panels are a panacea, but it is clear from the work that my committee has undertaken that they can be an important part of the solution to a number of problems that we must address if the way in which the Parliament delivers for the people of Scotland is to evolve.

All members will be concerned about the shocking figures on people’s declining trust in politics. Last year, the National Centre for Social Research reported that the British social attitudes survey had shown that

“Trust and confidence in government are as low as they have ever been.”

Further, the “Life in the UK 20204 Scotland” report gave Scotland a democratic wellbeing score of just 39 out of 100. It found that 63 per cent of people disagreed with the proposition that they could influence decisions that affect Scotland and, sadly, that 38 per cent had low levels of trust in members of the Scottish Parliament.

From the independent evaluation of the people’s panels we know what a positive impact they have had on participants’ trust in the Parliament. I will give just one example:

“More than 90% of participants”

in the panel on climate change

“responded ‘Very’ or ‘Extremely’ to the statement: ‘I feel like participating in the People’s Panel has improved the way I feel about the Scottish Parliament and the work it does to hold the Scottish Government to account’.”

That impact is to be welcomed, but there is also potential for the impact of panels to be felt beyond individual participants, because they take their experience and knowledge back with them to their own families and communities.

Of course I will.