Chamber and committees

Given my advanced age, and in case I forget to do so otherwise, I will move the motion in my name.

I begin by referring back to the recent Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee debate on committee effectiveness, because the Minister for Parliamentary Business, who I am delighted to see will be participating in today’s debate, challenged me to delve into history because he was very disappointed that, in the committee, I had not come up with an example that predated one that had been quoted to us. I will therefore start in the fifth century BC, on the hill of Pnyx, where citizens could gather in the agora to discuss and vote on matters. Those were the first citizens assemblies, so the concept is not a new one, although it is true that diversity may have been somewhat lacking, with only men able to vote—and probably only such as those able to vote besides.

The concept of giving citizens an active role in democracy is one that the Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee has been exploring throughout this session of Parliament. Two and a half millennia on, the blueprint that we have proposed will help to embed the spirit of the Athenian agora in the work of the Scottish Parliament, which, appropriately, sits in the Athens of the north. Here, then, is an opportunity for the minister to become Scotland’s Socrates, Plato or Aristotle. I am not sure that that is exactly what I see when I look at him, but today is his opportunity to prove himself the equal of ancient Greece’s finest and I look forward to his confirmation of the same.

In all seriousness, participation is not a new principle in respect of the way in which this Parliament operates. It is in the foundations: it was one of the principles set out by the consultative steering group on the Scottish Parliament and it is part of the way that we work in the chamber and in committees.

After almost a full session of the Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee looking at how to embed participation in the work of the Parliament, I hope that the principle of public participation now sells itself, and so, this time, I am here to talk about the approach that the committee set out in our report and blueprint. Our proposals represent a relatively modest investment and are an incremental way of embedding an approach that is at the cutting edge of deliberative practice, has an incredibly positive and powerful impact on participants, supports scrutiny and can help to address some of the most important challenges that we face as a Parliament.

Since we debated our previous report in this chamber, there have been two further people’s panels. One group considered the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009 and the other group looked at reducing drug harm and drug deaths in Scotland. The panels involve groups of 25 randomly selected people who broadly represent the demographic make-up of Scotland. They do not decide things but make recommendations that the committee, Parliament and parliamentarians ultimately decide on. They are brought together to consider a particular question: they hear from experts and are supported by trained facilitators as they consider the information in front of them and agree on recommendations.

People’s panels in the Scottish Parliament context are very much tied to the scrutiny work of Parliament’s committees. They are not muscling in on the role of committees or duplicating the work being done by members.

I am grateful for the point that Maggie Chapman makes. I think that Mr Torrance is correct that the cost is quite modest. A commitment to deliberative democracy seems to me to be a far better use of money than, say, the suggestion of one of my colleagues, who is retiring, that we create a Scottish house of lords. That might give people something to do, but it would be a very expensive and less democratic route than the people’s panels and the deliberative democracy route that we are looking at.

Panels also show the Parliament at its best, by giving focused and considered attention to important issues and drawing on a wider range of diverse voices to hold the Government to account.

I noted the statement that there should be no single-sex committees in the Parliament. How would Martin Whitfield ensure that that would be delivered?

I realise that, as a child of the 1950s, I am the oldest MSP contributing to the debate this afternoon, but I assure the minister that I have no first-hand recollection of the events of 1774 or earlier, so I am not able to respond to his request in quite the way that he might have expected.

I realise that a special meeting of the Parliament is taking place this afternoon in Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse, but I am immediately impressed by the quality of the contributions that I have been able to witness so far in the debate. I do not know whether there is a collective noun for conveners, but I enjoyed hearing from Audrey Nicoll, Richard Leonard and, of course, Kenny Gibson. I join in Stephen Kerr’s tribute to Kenny Gibson. It is my job—as it was once yours, Deputy Presiding Officer—to present, on behalf of the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body, the Parliament’s budget to the Finance and Public Administration Committee each year. I am always a model of circumspection and moderation in so doing, and I am always immensely impressed by the convener’s robust handling of the issues that we discuss, especially when it comes to the issue of MSP remuneration.

Are there any changes to the Parliament’s procedures and practices that would help the committees to work more effectively? The challenge that arises from this afternoon’s discussion very much reminds me of the early days of the coalition UK Government, when it sought to embrace the challenge of House of Lords reform. One might have thought that, with a coalition rather than a majority Government, the land was best placed for some sort of collective agreement to emerge. However, in fact, each of the proposals, some of which were eminently sensible, found a different coalition of interests that was opposed to it, so nothing transpired. The challenge for the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee will be to take forward some of what I think will be a degree of agreed thinking in the chamber this afternoon and transform it into something that might lead to the Parliament being more effective.

When this Parliament was created, it joined the Parliaments of North Korea, Nicaragua, Mozambique, China and Cuba in being unicameral. The suggestion was that we did not need another chamber—of course, we do not, as we are one of the most over-governed countries in the world, and the last thing that we need is a second chamber. However, the promise was that our committee system would be the vanguard or bulwark of democratic accountability that would counteract inappropriate, badly drafted or simply wrong legislation. The question before us is, have we succeeded in doing that? The answer is that we have sometimes done so, but not always. That leads to the issues that are before us today.

I sympathise, for example, with the views that have been expressed about gender balance, and the fact that we should not have single-sex committees. I am the convener of such a committee myself now. It did not start that way, but we had a woman on the committee who was promoted to another committee, and there was not another woman available to put in her place. When another committee member left, we had two women from their party in rapid succession, after which that place was filled by a man. Then, another party changed its representative but declined to appoint a woman to the place. The way in which our committees are constructed makes it difficult to find a formula that will achieve mixed-sex committees without having a lot of red tape at the start of the session that requires parties not only to abide by d’Hondt but to nominate a member of a particular sex in order to achieve the continuity of gender balance.

I take the point that, if there is no gender balance in the Parliament, having a gender balance on committees would possibly lead to far more work falling on a handful of representatives—that would certainly have been the case with the Conservative Party in this session.

Of course, continuity is a difficult thing to achieve, partly because people are promoted within their party to take on more senior roles, which changes the face of their representation. My committee has faced problems with continuity, too. The minister referred to our report containing our final recommendations on deliberative democracy, which the Parliament will debate early in June, but I note that there are only two members of the committee who have been through the whole of that committee inquiry and taken part in every stage of the development of the recommendations.

The Conservative Party is the only party in the chamber that has never had a taste of government in the devolved era, so we do not have the same vested interests as the other parties do in maintaining certain safeguards. Our view is that we should do away with d’Hondt in the construction of committees. If that were done, the smaller parties would have greater representation across the various committees, and it would achieve the ambition of the committees being more independent of Government and being able to scrutinise with more authority. Our view is that that would give additional emphasis to the notion that the committees are, in fact, an essential part of holding the Government to account and thus of ensuring democratic accountability.

We are not altogether sure about whether there should be elected conveners. I was part of the previous Presiding Officer’s commission that first suggested electing and remunerating conveners. I am not sure about those suggestions, but I am sure that a number of conveners, particularly in the Conveners Group—which is a group that in some respects I think we could do without, because I am not quite sure what it achieves; I say that with the greatest respect to you, Deputy Presiding Officer, as the chair of it—are unsure about what their level of authority and responsibility is. Almost more important than conveners being elected or remunerated would be a clear understanding of what the authority of a committee convener is to act. I am aware that some feel able to act and others feel constrained by the committee as to what they can do. That probably interferes with the democratic accountability function.

We would also like to see the creation of a full-time post-legislative scrutiny committee. That is not an original idea, and we have gone round the houses on it. I hoped that deliberative democracy might offer an opportunity, but I do not think that the deliberative democracy model was particularly successful. We know that we are all supposed to do more post-legislative scrutiny, but we are unable to do so within the construction and constraints that exist. That is our principal view.

In relation to committee size, the smaller the committee is, the better. Five to seven members has worked better but, in our model of doing away with d’Hondt, there would probably be more opportunity for authority and for representation from other parties.

I hope that there is a general interest in this issue in Parliament. Normally in the Conservative Party, when you get the whip’s broadcast, if it says that you are speaking on Thursday afternoon and no division is expected, you rather feel that you have been consigned to the graveyard shift, because everybody else might have left. Notwithstanding the fact that we are here on a Thursday afternoon to discuss the issue, I hope that there is a genuine interest in it rather than a “you will be here to discuss it this afternoon” interest. I can see that everybody who has contributed to the debate so far wants to contribute and has genuine personal experience and ideas to contribute. I hope that we can translate those into something that committee conveners can take forward in a meaningful way so that we achieve the change that we would like to see.

Is the committee minded to accept Mr Torrance’s proposal?

Members indicated agreement.

I do not even know whom I would ask to find out how many cats there are that would require to be microchipped. Would the measure be retrospective, or applied to each new cat that is to be launched into the domestic environment?

In any event, the Government is considering the issues, and it is perfectly reasonable to try to establish when those considerations might lead to a recommendation. Are colleagues content to support Mr Choudhury’s recommendation?

Members indicated agreement.

Are colleagues content with that?

Members indicated agreement.

I read again the response from the petitioner and Mrs Muir—it was not a happy experience. However, the Scottish Government seems resolute in its view. Do colleagues accept Mr Torrance’s recommendation at this point?

Members indicated agreement.

PE2111, lodged by Julie Fraser, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to provide families with financial support for early learning and childcare when their children reach nine months. The petition was last considered on 30 October 2024.

In its response, the Scottish Government highlights its work with local authorities on a national improvement project that will not only take focused action in five local authorities but seek out and promote good practice to increase uptake of such care for eligible two-year-olds.

The Scottish Government’s work on early adopter community projects has continued, too, with the aim of tackling poverty and helping families give their children the best start in life by expanding access to childcare services. The response confirms that some projects will directly support children from the age of nine months, but firm data will be available only through future grant reporting and evaluation activity.

In light of that response, do members have any suggestions for action?