Chamber and committees

Langholm is one of the places that the Scottish Government should start with. A recent public meeting saw more than 300 people crowd into the Buccleuch centre there, and one of the top issues that they raised was their difficulty in getting to Dumfries and Galloway royal infirmary in Dumfries. In a best-case scenario, the journey involves a round trip of six buses and takes more than four hours. That is not realistic for the elderly, the sick and those who are unable to drive. Given what the cabinet secretary has said, does he recognise that that is an unfair ask? Will he raise these concerns with the health board and ensure that alternative arrangements are put in place? For example, could the use of technology be increased, could some clinics be re-established at Thomas Hope hospital, and could more use be made of services at Carlisle hospital, as was the case in the past?

To ask the Scottish Government what action it is taking to ensure that residents in Eskdale can access patient transport for hospital appointments. (S6O-04810)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I could not connect. I would have voted yes.

To ask the Scottish Government what steps it is taking to ensure that pupils with additional support needs receive consistent and adequate support. (S6O-04757)

The funding that has been set out does not match the need. Today is another day with teachers reportedly being in tears and at breaking point. A new survey by the NASUWT shows that 70 per cent of teachers say that support for ASN pupils has declined over the past five years, with more than a third saying that they rarely receive the financial support that they need to teach ASN pupils properly. That does not come as a surprise to me. Something is going wrong. What is the cabinet secretary going to do to change that?

I was coming to that point in relation to Christine Grahame’s comments. I think that there are better ways of engaging people within committees. There are some very good committee clerks and others with great experience in this building who find ways and means of doing that. I am not lucky enough to be a committee member currently, but, having been on many committees across the time that I have been in Parliament, I have seen that engagement done well.

However, it is often the MSPs who are most resistant to trying new things or doing things differently. We talk about doing things differently, engaging new approaches and following evidence-based approaches, but it is often MSPs who want to go to the usual suspects and bring in such organisations. MSPs want their moment in the sun—not literally the sun, but probably The Sun newspaper—giving professional witnesses a dressing down and capturing a 30-second clip for their social media. We could do more to ensure that we get the best evidence.

I hear what Stuart McMillan says. If people are checking out early to go home, that is problematic. However, many members across the chamber represent constituencies that are far away from Edinburgh, where genuine local democracy is taking place and constituents expect us to be—taking the Parliament to them, as Evelyn Tweed said. That is also part of the job of an MSP. I am worried by the suggestion that remote proceedings are being used improperly, as many members use that option to do a better job.

Will the member accept an intervention?

I am glad to follow Alex Rowley’s speech, because he hit the nail on the head. He is right that it has been a nice debate, but we spend too much time thinking about ourselves. As a Parliament, we have a false impression of how good we are at outward engagement. Yes, the Parliament might feel open and accessible to those who know about it and feel confident coming here to engage, and yes, it might feel open and accessible to those who are in close proximity to it, but for many people, the Parliament feels remote and distant from where and how they live.

I worry when I hear about the Leith Walk test in relation to the proposal. I am supportive of the proposal: its scale makes it worth a try, and it is worth exploring as a tool, in addition to the other things that we do. However, the Leith Walk test is problematic. Many people who we might meet on Leith Walk, or on any other wander through Scotland, already regard the Parliament as a talking shop, and I am not sure that 14-minute speeches necessarily help that—I say that in the unlikely event that people have tuned in to this debate. [Laughter.] By the same measure, I am not sure that listening to me will dispel that myth.

People already think that we spend a lot of time talking and not a lot of time doing. If they hear that £55,000 is going to be spent four times over, they will probably wonder whether we will be losing a few MSPs to make up the difference, since we are asking the public to do more of our job.

There is a challenge around the concept. It sounds nice. The evidence from people who have participated in the people’s panels is that it works, they feel valued and the output is useful to parliamentarians. However, when only 100 or 140 people are experiencing it for themselves, many other constituents and people across Scotland will struggle to connect with the idea. I think that they will question why it is needed, why the existing committee structures do not work and why MSPs do not already communicate better with the public.

We have a big job of work to do if we want to go down this route and sell the idea to the wider population who are disengaged and uninterested. I am not sure that what is proposed will be a meeting point with Parliament that will engage or capture their interest.

I am interested in what Christine Grahame said in her intervention about other techniques that can be used.

I am interested in a point that the member made during an earlier intervention. I worry about the danger of participative committees becoming an alternative to having real people taking part in the committee process. They might be an easier way to do things, but I think that we need to look at how our committees gather evidence. As she says, there are good ways of doing that. I worry that our committees might become secondary and that we might lose the chance for those who are most disadvantaged to participate in our Parliament, so we should look at other processes, too.