Seòmar agus comataidhean

As it happens, I sit on the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body, which is entrusted with running the functional aspects of the Parliament. One of the groups that we hear from is the Parliament’s educational unit, which engages with schools. For the past few months, that unit has been involved in trying to understand how to reach the many schools that do not currently seek to participate with the Parliament. We get lots of educational groups coming to the Parliament—if you watch the chamber, you might see them in the lower section of the public gallery—but it is often the same schools that come every year. Lots of schools do not come.

Gillian, you said that that issue needs to be looked at in some detail. You talk about potential mentorships and internships—which can sometimes be controversial, because people feel that it is unpaid labour or whatever—and more competitions. However, you felt that the group in the Parliament that is currently looking at that is right to do so, because there is a need to think of different ways to encourage the active interest of young people.

That is a practical example of how it would make a difference.

Maria, you talked about plain and transparent language. I was struck that, in a way, you were also arguing that, even if we accept all the recommendations at face value, that should not in itself be the basis on which we proceed. Work will need to be done to understand whether people accept that and believe that those things will make the difference. Is that what you were trying to suggest?

Yes, but there is a distinction between that and potentially engaging with the parliamentary apparatus.

We will talk about cross-party groups later. I am interested in the importance that is attached to that. Of course, the Parliament does not really facilitate cross-party groups, so that might be something in the report that needs to be looked at again.

We will move on to the next section of the report, which is about how Parliament uses deliberative democracy. Our discussion on that will be led by Ronnie Paterson and John Sultman. Which of you will kick off?

John Sultman referred to that a moment ago when I talked about a more detailed programme. Fair enough.

I think that that is contained in the recommendations as we move through the report—

You also make reference to the Happy to Translate scheme and the ability of those whose first language is not English to follow proceedings. What was your feeling about that? I am interested to know whether any of the 19 panel members had any experience of Happy to Translate. On what basis did that come up as an option?

Good morning, and welcome to this special meeting of the Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee in 2022. I say “special”, because I am especially pleased to welcome members of the citizens panel on participation, who will discuss with us their report and the recommendations that arose from it.

We have received apologies from our colleague Fergus Ewing, who is not able to be with us today, as well as from—sadly, at the last minute—Alexander Stewart, who was supposed to be joining us remotely from deepest, darkest Bridge of Allan, where I thought communications still reached. However, he has had communications issues and is unable to join us this morning.

Agenda item 1 is a decision on taking business in private. Are the committee members who are present—David Torrance and Paul Sweeney—content to take item 3 in private?

Members indicated agreement.

The substance of today’s meeting is the committee’s public participation inquiry. We have with us around the table some of the 19 members who were able to join in that work. Paul MacDonald, Gillian Ruane, John Sultman, and Maria Schwarz have joined us in the room—and I now see Ronnie Paterson, who is joining us remotely. Mr Paterson, I take it that that is a mirror on the wall behind you and not a porthole. I assume that you are joining us from home and that you are not on board a ship somewhere.

Thank you. That is one of the advantages of the Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee. We are taking forward the issues of an individual with a petition rather than bringing forward individual party-political considerations, which sometimes allows us to have a meaningful conversation about the particular issue at hand.

Thank you for your appearance with us this morning.

I should mention that sceptics of the proposal for home reports—of which I was one at the time—were concerned about the principle underpinning home reports, which is that they would do away with the need for undertaking expensive surveys when people were making offers for properties. On the question whether a home report is deficient, it has certainly been my experience in the years since the introduction of home reports that, when someone buys a home, a survey has still been needed as part of the requirements of the mortgage lender.