 I welcome everyone to the sixth meeting of the Citizens participation and Public Petitions Committee of 2022. We have got a busy agenda this morning, and we start with a declaration of interest. Since we last met Ruth Maguire, I would very much like to thank Ruth for the work that she did with us and the short time that she was with us, and I wish her ond i chi'n ddim yn ei wneud i fawr, ond ni wedi gynnal i chi'n gwyb perquèaeth eich gwirionedd ond hefyd. Mae rhai o feddygu fel plug yng Nghymru, Rydym yn gwybod i Fugus Ewing, dyma i gyfrifio y Chwyddiad, yn gwybod i gyd, a just fel y cychydigau gyda chi'n ymddangos ar y clywedol i'r lleidiau, mae hwynt yn fawr i'r flwyddgus ei ddydd, ac mae Gwilai Gwilai Gwilai Gwilai Gwilai Gwilai Gwilai Gwilai Gwilai Gwilai Gwilai Gwilai Gwilai Gwilai Gwilai That's a bit of a risky invitation, convener, but I was suffice to say I'm delighted to join this committee, which I've always admired as the hallmark of the Scottish Parliament, and the distinctive asset that we have in allowing access to citizens to our Parliament. So I'm very pleased to play a part working across party in a non-partisan fashion on this committee. The interest that I would declare is that I am a member of the Law Society of I'm on the role of slisters, but haven't practised it in many a month. Thank you very much. That brings us to item 2 this morning, which is an evidence session. We are taking evidence this morning from a Scottish Government expert group. The evidence is from the Scottish Government's working group on institutionalising participatory and deliberative democracy group, which I'll refer to as the IPDD group from now on. It was established last summer and it published a report in March of this year, which set out a number of recommendations on how to make Scotland's democracy more participative inclusive. Of course, that's very relevant to the consideration that the committee is currently giving to this whole area as part of our remit. I'm delighted to welcome three members of the committee to our proceedings this morning. Here with us in the Parliament is Kelly McBride, who is deliberate of democracy lead with TPX impact. It says here appearing in person, but there you are, self-evidently so. I'm delighted that we also have joining us online this morning Fiona Garvan, director of the Scottish Community Development Centre, and also joining us is Talat Yakub, who is the independent consultant and researcher appearing virtually. Welcome to you all. I understand, Kelly, that you've offered to determine as we progress through our evidence and inquiry this morning who's best place to answer each of our questions. For those of you participating virtually so that the clerks are aware that you would like to come in, if you want to come in spontaneously at any point, then just as in every other medium if you could put an R in the chat box, that would let us know that you wish to come in. We have a number of areas that we're keen to explore with the group this morning. Those follow on, I think, very much from our first evidence session that we took with witnesses who were really from a very broad spectrum both internationally and here in the UK with an expertise in this area. So I think we want to look at the operation of the group, the definitions that you have identified, the benefits of participator in deliberative democracy. I think I note that there is a section which talks about the risks and I guess we are in this committee also keen to understand what the unforeseen consequences might be of even being successful in a deliberative democracy exercise. Although some of the risks appear to be identified as risks that come about if we don't succeed well enough, there could be others too. The group's vision, the recommendations that you've made and obviously the next steps because we as I know you will be now are looking forward to receiving at some point the Scottish Government's response. I think probably we'll maybe want also just to have some idea the extent to which the Scottish Government left the committee to do its own work or to what extent you felt you were getting encouraged to sort of look at particular areas which might then lead you to anticipate the nature of the response you might receive. So if I could just start off Kelly by asking really how the membership or in so far as you are aware how the membership of this group was established and as I said a moment ago just to what extent Scottish Government officials had any input into the kind of thinking as it developed within the committee once established? Yes, of course. Good morning everyone. My name is Kelly McBride. I'm a deliberative democracy leader at TPX Impact and I think it's helpful to share that my role in the working group was facilitating the sessions. I'll tell you a little bit more about them in the moment. So the working group itself brought together a range of members from civil society, academia and research, independent expertise, practitioners and at points invited some inputs from people representing the civil service, the Scottish Government, local government, the Scottish Parliament and indeed the secretariat of Scotland's climate assembly. I think it was really important to hear some different perspectives for members of the group that represented a really broad range of people with interest in this area and great experience and knowledge to help us think through some of the challenges of institutionalising participatory and deliberative democracy. I know other colleagues joining us on the call might want to give their perspective of the range of views and experience that were in the room in a moment but I thought it would be helpful just to give a bit of background to how the group operated and how it is that we came together in our meetings. So in essence we had five facilitated workshops between July and November 2022. By facilitated I mean that the group came together in what I understand as a format that's not typical of a working group in that we really wanted to encourage deep interrogation of ideas for everyone to be able to share their different perspectives and so we gave great thoughts or I gave great thoughts to the format in which those meetings were conducted which were a series of small group discussions but also plenary discussions with invited input from people representing different parts of the system that I mentioned a moment ago. So the workshops themselves between July and November covered a series of topics. The first one looked at context setting and background so we were really at a starting point there of thinking what does participation and participatory democracy mean to us, what does it mean to embed or have more routine use of this and where has this group come from so we learnt a little bit about how the group was instigated about some of the things included in things like the bute house agreement and the programme for government and recent conversations that had happened across the sphere in Scotland. In the second workshop we looked at standards, values and principles. There we used the OECD's work as a starting point to interrogate some of the standards, values and principles and thought about what that meant at the context of Scotland and how would these things work in Scotland. In the third workshop we looked at the remit governments and impact in the fourth resources and infrastructure and in the final one we had a review session to look at basically how the report was developing. The final thing that I'll just say at this point to give a bit of background is that we gave opportunities for people to review the raw notes that were captured during all those sessions to continue providing feedback and input asynchronously, so that means that they had time to reflect on what was coming out of these sessions and give further feedback. There were also opportunities at two points to comment on emerging draft reports and make suggested amendments and edits to those reports, including spotting any gaps or issues of contention that we brought back to the group to discuss during those various sessions, but in particular in that final review workshop. In terms of the membership of the group, I'm not too sure in how everyone was brought into the fold, but I can absolutely say with certainty that the membership of that group are people that have experience from the broad range of different sectors and perspectives that I mentioned and definitely brought different perspectives, so it wasn't a consensus throughout on every single point and there was absolutely discussion. I would invite other colleagues to maybe give a reflection as participants in that process and how they experience and tell that maybe you'll be well placed to do that. Fiona, sorry, would you like to come in on that? Yes, what might seem like an obvious gap in the membership of the group are citizens themselves or people who have been through an assembly process of which we've had to in Scotland, but I believe there were some constraints around that just in terms of the delay of being able to provide support, follow-up support to the citizens that were involved in the citizens assembly for Scotland and the climate assembly. I think that in future years that getting that citizen perspective into how this work develops in Scotland is critically important, but I think that that's something that will achieve as we go forward. Okay, thank you. I don't know, Talat, is there anything you'd like to contribute on this particular kind of construction? No, just to endorse what Fiona said there in that going forward the implementation of this, the delivery of this and that being led by the very participants and citizens we want involved. Those who are for this marginalised from access to power and influence is critical because this was a combination of people who were independent and thought differently of it but were experts and at least in some way had some access to influence and had been involved in these kinds of work groups before, so pursuing that in the delivery of the help. That might actually just have anticipated what I was going to ask now because I understand from everything you've said how the workshops were constructed and I was just interested to know how the actual recommendations themselves emerged, how did they surface and how did you come to agree what those recommendations would be? Sorry, it should be the... Right, so there are two things that I'll say around this. Firstly, during the workshops themselves there were a series of prompt questions that during the discussion enabled us to surface the range of possible options which were then able to be what we call synthesised that means one group may have said the same thing and another group said the others we would bring them together and then present the range of different ideas that had come up back to the group and have further discussion that enabled us to basically narrow down preferred options. Within the workshop settings we were able to do that and again I mentioned there was feedback that happened asynchronously which also enabled us to surface where there was still further discussion to be had and some tensions perhaps playing out with different ideas. Those ideas were again brought back to the final workshop and the members of the group were giving further opportunities to make comments and then we were able to bring that back and provide further opportunities if people did want to discuss different options and different routes. I think just building on what Talat and Fiona said there about the citizen voice I think the group were very conscious of the fact that actually some of the recommendations that could potentially be made did require further discussion and that was why there is very intentionally recommendations to engage in further discussion and the recommendations themselves don't stray too far into the design of these different processes and systems and that again you know that is intentional because the group realised that actually it would be preferable to involve more people in that conversation so I would highlight in particular two recommendations the one related to the children and young people's symposium we did not have representatives of youth organisations or designated youth representatives on this group and we saw both an opportunity but also a risk of this group making recommendations when actually you haven't involved the voices the people that this was going to impact the opportunity of being able to have what we believe knowing some of the work that our wonderful youth organisations across Scotland are doing at the moment to bring them together actually to have a discussion about how they want to see that side of things progressing and another area and this also relates to why the vision the standards and the other bits are in a supporting document was that we were really aware that there needed to be some further and deeper engagement with local government and the group was very conscious that the local and community aspect of this is something that needed much more conversation and it needed to ensure that we had stakeholders in the room that were able to represent the breadth of local views so there's a recommendation there for further engagement on the local issue because the group is again very conscious that that local element is a huge part really about how we institutionalise participatory and deliberative democracy even though we were given a set remit at the start to focus particularly on citizens assemblies from one particular angle but we opened up that conversation very purposefully in order to leave the space to invite stakeholders to engage more deeply on this over the coming months we would hope. Thank you and at the council of profession we are you could have anticipated just where I was going to go with that next question because I was interested to know why the standards documents stood to one side and it's a theme that's broadly similar to the one you just articulated in relation to some of the recommendations and we probably will touch on some of the groups particularly you referred there to the young people to go along. I think that's kind of set the scene in terms of how the group operated how the recommendations arose and what you thought the not the limits of the recommendations but the limits of the force behind the recommendations that you might have had because like I think as we've discovered in even our own consideration there are many voices really to be considered in all of this and whilst it may well be fortuitous if they come to similar views we want to see if that's actually what happens rather than necessarily insisting that it be the case. If we move now to the definitions David Torrance would you like to take us forward with those because they're very interesting. Thank you very much convener and good morning to all the witnesses. The first objectives of the group was to come up with definitions how did you come about that? The first step of this was an open invitation to the group to share definitions that they used in their everyday work and they were collated essentially in a document and then a smaller group were brought together to review some of the definitions and we particularly I would highlight had input from academics who have worked to try and define some of this terminology in the work that they're doing who again were representative on the group and there was just a process of reviewing some of the definition options refining them and again having a check and a sense check with the wider group to see that they were happy with them so the initial list really was drawn from our academic partners in the group but others brought their experience and were able to tweak the language that was ultimately included in the final report and there are references in the document itself which have some direct links to where some of the sources for the starting points for many of those definitions are Can you go into more detail why definitions is not definitive? Why definitions is not, yes indeed so I think there is some contestation as you find in many parts of academia in particular who have done a really good job I think of trying to define what is some that you know started as quite tricky concept to define so there is no consensus in the literature to say this is the ultimate definition and I don't think that's a bad thing in the context of this work because we were dealing with democracy and we understand that in different contexts people may want to have some room to kind of maneuver and define things in a way that work for them in their setting and indeed I'd say in previous work that's happened in Scotland there has been work for example around the participation framework that is mentioned in the open government action plan most recently there is no consensus over the one kind of form of how to frame the language around all of these things and we're finding different actors and different partners are using different language and that is I believe one of the reasons why a task of trying to define this in the context of this work was set for the group because it acknowledged that there isn't kind of one set and agreed definition across all actors and indeed internationally that's used as best practice if that makes sense I think Talad would like to come in on this one as well David Thank you Just to add to that point one of the reasons why the group membership was so varied so you had people from society, third sector academics, researchers was to be able to have wide ranging definitions for example all the work that I've done on this is direct engagement is participation it's working with communities the definitions used there are really focused on accessibility and ease compared to some of the definitions that might be used in academia actually having that space to come together and put definitions that people who are working on these issues from very different perspectives were able to come together and get some consensus on was hugely beneficial there is a fluidity involved in this because some of the definitions depend on the type of deliberative democracy methods that are then pursued and I think whilst there might be it might be difficult not to have definitions that are very clear and street-cut this isn't clear and street-cut in fact it goes in the direction that the citizens and the participants are looking for so there needs to be some element of fluidity there but the definitions were created and the consensus was built from individuals that have come together with years and years of expertise but from very different backgrounds and that's why that exercise was really really helpful in creating basically the base the foundations of this report because it allowed us to think about the way in which we have been delivering participation in our different arenas in public life David Torrance around the benefits what evidence is there to show that these benefits, the list of benefits you came to how did you come to them? Yes and again I will turn to Fiona and Talat to give a response to this but again just building on what Talat was saying there I think a range of benefits were brought from different partners that were involved in this so when you look at the report you would see that they have been organised drawing on all of that experience into categories of benefits for people and communities benefits for government specific benefits for children and young people and there was some further engagement as well I should say around children and young people with some different actors out in civil society and youth organisations to talk about that specifically but Talat and Fiona can I bring you in on this point to speak to the benefits perhaps Fiona first then Talat Okay It's a shame that Oliver isn't here to be able to give evidence this morning due to family bereavement but certainly in terms of the research report of the citizens assembly for Scotland that's as expressed by participants citizens themselves are within that report I was one of the facilitators of the citizens assembly for Scotland and certainly we had continual conversations about people's participation and how it benefited them individually and how they could then see how it could benefit wider society we also along with the democratic society supported a group of the citizens who took part in the citizens assembly for Scotland as part of a follow-up support because those individuals wanted to continue to engage in democratic processes they wanted to advocate for citizens assemblies and better participatory democracy in Scotland as a foundation of our democracy and how it works so a lot of the benefits that you see there are things that have been expressed by citizens themselves as well as research on citizens assemblies both here in Scotland, UK and further afield Thank you and Talat Sorry I wasn't sure if that was my cue to come in Yes certainly I completely endorse both Kelly and Fiona have said there again it is evidence based the benefits that have been explained are from citizens themselves from participation efforts and also from academic research and it's really important that some of the benefits are put into the context of the current political landscape where there is decreasing trust in political processes within democracy and actually one of the clear benefits of this is if implemented well is regaining some of that trust opening access to decision making to a much wider group of people and creating participation and a sense of ownership over the decisions that are impacting our daily lives particularly those from communities who are the most marginalised so there is very clear benefits and from my perspective the benefits outweith the risks both for the individuals in terms of citizens for communities for local government all the way through to Parliament and the Government there are a range of benefits and these are expressed both in evidence from expertise and also lived experience evidence gathered through participation methods from lived experience panels citizens assemblies and further The group was looking at the benefits they must have looked at the risks in democracy so what are the risks please I'd say one of the key risks and again I'll go to Talat and Fiona in the moment that we started talking about was the risk of doing this badly so badly I guess what we mean by that is for example setting really unclear expectations failing to take approaches that are inclusive and take account of some of the equality considerations that we have to give is that involve people and then nothing happens at the end and it's unclear perhaps where their time and contribution has really enabled change or seen any action off the back of it and that's very much why we also were given consideration in this group too well what are the resources that we need to do this well how do we bring people together to think about what happens next after people have given their time and their contributions and what does it mean perhaps to think about the best way of governing processes like this so that they have trust and a view of legitimacy and buy-in from the wider public there are other risks of participation like this that we talked about such as perhaps things happening at such a small scale that there isn't public awareness of things that are happening we know that media buy-in and mass media messaging around this kind of work difficult to this point and that's partly because we know this is such a new way of working and there's a lot of learning that we as a society and across the system have to do to understand these methods and where they are best placed and how they are best placed we also talked briefly about the risks of having things happening in one level of governance but actually not involving other levels and layers of governance including what happens at the community and the local level and one of the things that the group very early identified was that although we'd been brought together to talk primarily around citizens assemblies and one method and we were talking about it at a particular level and that was delivery essentially at the central level actually this needs to be considered as part of a wider system of democracy and I'm sure we'll come on to talk about the wider system and risks at some point in this discussion so we need to think about how this level connects with the real lived experience and the reality that people are facing at different levels of their lives and that's why very much this group thought that we had to think about stuff that was happening in communities happening at the local level how that would connect to things that were happening at the level in which the group was initially talking about and how messages and that kind of learning about how this all works could be shared more widely across society and that they have the opportunity to get more involved in shaping the decisions that affect their lives and we're very conscious that this requires a degree of culture change and a change in the way that we perhaps are working in our approach to involving people in different stages of policy processes and discussion big issues that affect their lives and that indeed is no easy task I know some governments across the world are now looking at this in different ways and making attempts to embed those approaches but we're still early days in lots of ways and I think we're very conscious of the fact that there's going to be a lot of learning along this journey and I think we're very conscious that that means that we need lots of points of reflection built in along the way and I think the recommendations that the group have come up with allow this to kind of happen at a pace that enables the moments to pause and reflect and ensure that we're able to adapt and we're building and developing this system of participatory and deliberative democracy in a way that can be improved and democracy itself isn't necessarily a static thing and maybe something that needs to be reflected on from time to time so in terms of the risks there are points along the way in which we think reflection will be needed but I'll hand over to Talat and Fiona to give a different take on this Fiona, you particularly asked to come in at this point I don't want to repeat everything that Kelly's said but just to reinforce again the group was very clear that citizens assemblies had to be consequential something had to happen as a result of it and that's why you see in the values and principles document that if we subscribe to that set of values and principles then whoever commissions or whoever starts the assembly has to commit to then being able to respond to it and respond to it publicly I think just to expand a wee bit about local democracy again I think the group was really clear in saying that a citizens assembly is only one part of a democratic infrastructure a participatory democracy infrastructure and it actually has to happen throughout the system so from communities perspectives at local government level and throughout on its own it would have limited impact and there is a risk that if we just ran one citizens assembly a year it could be seen as tokenistic just one element that we had I think where we come from as the Scottish Community Development Centre is we work directly with communities all of the time and what they're interested in is not just the policy issues and the bigger issues for society but actually what impacts them in their everyday life and so some of this work has to sit alongside what will be coming through the local governance view for example and the review of the Community Empowerment Scotland Act how we can start to shape democracy from the grassroots and very much at local level as I say for people when they participate have much more agency in staking the process and also cheap better outcomes better policy, better decisions Thank you and Talad I think I really want to emphasise that it's very clear that the benefits far outweigh any risks that are associated with pursuing deliberative democracy in my view I don't see risks in pursuing deliberative democracy and in embedding it the risks are I believe 2 fold 1 in not doing it in the current landscape or attempting to do it in an under-resort and in a coherent way so the first I want to touch on is by not pursuing methods of deliberative democracy and opening the doors more competently to a much wider and larger number of people to engage in the decisions that are impacting their lives is simply not an acceptable status quo for us to be in currently we tend to focus on consultation methods consultation responses there is some outreach that is pursued when there are big decisions being made but this is piecemeal at best and what I notice in a lot of the work that I've done over the years that I've been involved in participation work and influencing consultation responses as a blunt instrument to try and get people to give their take on decisions that are being made I don't believe are fit for purpose in the way that they are pursued currently so I believe the risk is in not pursuing deliberative democracy to open the doors to decision making to a wider range of people the second is it being implemented in a way that is not fit for purpose and is not coherent across Scottish Government we risk delivering this without significant resource requires which means that it will be something that's done when it's nice to do not when it's necessary to do that will give the feeling of tokenism for those on the ground participants and citizens who actually want to take part in it and might actually do more to create distrust so it requires very competent and well resourced implementation and the last thing I would say is the risk is not about doing it but about doing it purely a society with systemic inequality with systemic oppressions, discriminations and inequalities particularly for working class communities, for black, Asian men or ethnic communities table people, women, unpaid carers a number of marginalised groups if the implementation is not embedded in an anti oppressive a fair power redistributive representative model then the risk is toll who actually are at the sharpest end of policymaking and feel the effects of bad policymaking decisions are the ones that are again ignored in a new method of participation but I don't think there's risks in pursuing the legitimacy I think there's risks in not doing it or risks in doing it purely Can I be devil's advocate? I mean we're not here to establish a balance sheet actually between the two but let me put it just as I'm interested to understand what you would say and there's a lady who works in my local bakers who I get my messages from to use the antique term and she said to me, look Mr Carlaw I elect you I have absolutely no interest in any discussion or involvement I think very carefully about how I am going to vote I vote for my elected representative and if I don't like the decisions they take then I will get rid of them and that is how I want to operate so I suppose one of my questions would be is that lady being marginalised by the farming out of decision making process to people over whom she has got no democratic control or mandate to determine who they are or what they're discussing or the decisions and recommendations that they're making and secondly this is a voluntary process we can't mandate that people participate and there's a very wide we know it as politicians a very wide community of people who are not apathetic but actually don't want to involve themselves in this whole kind of process and I guess my question is and I've posed this in other forums as well if there are two communities maybe adjacent to one another and one is very interested in being involved in the whole deliberative democracy and consultation and comes forward with a series of recommendations but the community in the village next there isn't but actually don't agree with anything that the group next door said have they been marginalised and would they potentially, this is the risk would they potentially find that decisions are being arrived at and which are prejudicial to them simply because they chose not to participate in a voluntary deliberative process so I mean I'm not necessarily advocating those as risks but I'm trying to articulate what I think might be an unforeseen consequential risk of this being in whatever sense successful Kelly I don't know if you want to have a bash at that I was going to see if Talit wants to respond first but then I'll come in I can do so I understand what you're saying here there are a few things I've been taking notes I think first and primary issue here is you mentioned there about people being apathetic and they just didn't want to participate I think it's really important to drill down and find out what it is that makes people apathetic and what is it that makes people not want to participate so there's an issue here not simply in saying that people don't want to participate they'll stop of not having the time to participate perhaps it's the consequence of not feeling that the method of participation is accessible so there isn't there whilst we're talking about people not feeling able to participate or being apathetic to it I think it's more nuanced than that and I think actually there's some drilling down on why that is and what we find in a lot of the work that I do is not people not interested in the decisions that are being made but actually they didn't see routes that were accessible for them to participate in the decisions in the first place which is what the liberty of democracy is attempting to create the second issue this doesn't overtake representative democracy it works in parallel too works in connection with the Parliament so there is no threat to how democracy operates currently if anything I believe that it enhances it and makes the ability of parliamentarians to make decisions with evidence from a wider range of people who have experience of issues such as poverty climate change whether it is health inequalities, whatever it might be it actually provides input from a much wider range of people and lastly I would say in the same token we have people who don't want to participate would we consider those people to be marginalised there is a choice to participate in the democratic process that currently exists there would be a choice to participate in the democratic endeavours pursued by deliberative democracy what we are doing is creating multiple ways of participation be able to create as many platforms as possible for people to engage and that creates and the evidence tells us that creates better more fit for purpose decisions and outcomes so I would say that the person isn't marginalised because it works complementary to and alongside representative democracy okay thank you Fiona I just said certainly backs up our experience of working at a local level with wider communities community organisations as part of a wider community alliance in many different areas across Scotland and it really is around the question of what people often don't participate because they don't know how and also we find that people need both the opportunity, motivation and capacity to be able to participate and what motivates them often is the possibility for change clearly don't see the ability or the consequence of them participating then it can lead to people thinking about what is the point in doing that if you like and just in terms of moving to a more deliberative democracy participatory democracy often the mechanisms for people to participate are used in hostility so you see that large across the planning system people maybe don't participate when things are fine but when something happens that takes out a transport route to school or there's a new housing development people will suddenly participate but it's in a way that's quite hostile as opposed to a process which can be embedded which is about participation and deliberation that looks at the needs of people who need houses as well as the needs of those communities their services intact and so on so from that point of view I would agree with what has been said by Tala and Kelly about the risks are actually larger to not going down a more deliberative route and that the choices there are then become much wider for people to participate on their terms but it doesn't negate the need for representative democracy it sits alongside representative democracy and just one more thing we've also been involved quite a lot in participatory budgeting over the years and where we've seen in other countries as well as in Scotland where local politicians get involved in participatory budgeting processes they're out there, they're meeting voters they're meeting local people that they actually see their relationship develop in a positive way and they then can raise issues around what they know in the communities and share those with what the people are experiencing and then we find that voter turnout actually increases as a result of people engaging in those processes closer to home thank you very much I hope that was useful actually the issue with the lady I was referring to in the Baker was in relation to referendums she actually didn't want to have to be consulted in referendums because she felt she was being required to become much more knowledgeable about a subject than she felt comfortable becoming that was the context of her saying that she elected people to take these decisions for her Alexander Stewart and good morning and thank you the panel for their comments so far when you identified the way forward here you wanted to be ambitious you wanted to be creative and you wanted to be inclusive and to achieve all that you required to have a vision and that vision has come out a little bit in the discussion we've had so far this morning but it would be quite good for you to identify how as a group you came about agreeing a vision for this whole process yes absolutely so very practically just to start and then I'll open to Fiona and Talon and then come in behind them if that's okay we identified the different elements of a discussion that we had to have and that was done partly in that first workshop but also me drawing on some of the experience of lead facilitating and designing the previous citizens assemblies that have happened in Scotland and knowing the different areas that for example the research and findings have touched on as elements that perhaps needed a bit of focus and attention for example things like the governance and those different approaches so we essentially broke that down into manageable chunks so we could address each of those areas in turn and in doing so identified as I mentioned earlier a series of different actions that could be taken and then essentially prioritised the actions that we thought would be the most effective in the context in which we're working and sort consensus from the group around those set of actions and then we stood back and we looked at them as a whole and I mentioned that we had that final workshop to do that and to look at that and at that point we saw how the different elements and the different parts managed to fit together and we thought about the coherence of that and there was further opportunity to refine it asynchronously beyond that so practically in terms of the process that's how we got to the different elements Fiona and Tala, do you want to make any general comments on the vision? I can simply just add that it was pursued in a very similar way to how the definitions were it was conversations around what it is that we expected from this when we have certainly when I have worked with participant systems on the ground particularly through lived experience expertise what's their vision in terms of what they want created in terms of access points to influence decision making to have their experiences their lived experience expertise and put it into decision making in Scotland so it was through that same deliberative process that we used for definitions and for recommendations and again it was leaning on the very different expertise from academia research and civil society within the working group Fiona, do you want to add? I knew I would get nothing done Kelly, do you want to come back slightly? Yes, certainly I would start by saying as a group I think we are a group of people when it turned out during this process who are quite excited about the opportunity that Scotland has I mean Scotland I know it's a bit cliche to say so but many of us feel it's at the cutting edge of statutory and deliberative democracy and certainly in international settings where I have the privilege of meeting people who are working on similar things what we're doing here in Scotland and the thought that we're giving this is certainly a matter of discussion and I think the fact that we're even sitting around the table here today says a lot and that we're able to discuss this in such an open and transparent way so I think when you look at the vision that's included within the document itself it comes from that place of knowing that we have something going here and that there is potential that we have wonderful experiences in Scotland that are happening in pockets all over the country that we can draw on to say that there are examples of great stuff happening and Fiona for example has already highlighted the work that's happening in participatory budgeting which is particularly happening at the local level in our communities across Scotland and we know that this work is also taking place in the context of many other organisations and many other groups that have come together to think about this talking about the potential that we have and for example I know that the group that TALA was involved in the RSE Covid recovery group in your report has also given some thought to this and made recommendations that actually we have brought into our discussions and included in our report but yeah I think the group drawing on the experiences of citizens assemblies as a starting point came to the conclusion quite early on and I think I've already mentioned this that although we're talking about citizens assemblies this is about so much more as well and you know we're really conscious that there is the potential and we would hope for this work to gain cross-party support in fact that's actually a really important element of this you know it's important that we all understand how participatory and delivered mocks who can develop in Scotland and we are interested in that as well and I think the recommendations in the report themselves you know they Paul's going to deal with them in a second Alexander is there anything you'd just like to ask and I know TALA would like to come back in as well but maybe if you could just see you've identified your vision and that gives you the starting block you've also touched on what has happened and the lessons you've learned from the citizens assemblies but it's all about enhancing democracy that's your goal but there's also a trust element here as to where individuals feel that their participation is making a difference and if that is the case is there not some potential that if that doesn't happen in all cases that the trust could be damaged in identifying what you're trying to see in your goal and your aspiration and your vision I know TALA was keen to come in so I don't know whether TALA addressing the point you were going to address but you could pick up Alexander's point as well I can do so the point I was going to make was just in reference to the Royal Society of Edinburgh's Post-Covid-19 Futures Commission I sat on that with a number of different experts from across private sector, public sector third sector and beyond and it's not the only group that I've been on where over the last I would say three or four years there has been a real push to pursue deliberative democracy so I think it's important to emphasise that it's not just this particular working group that has this expectation within Scotland that is hoping that this is pursued well in Scotland the national participation strategy expertise and expertise centre on participation was also in the Royal Society of Edinburgh's report as well and a number of other places has been discussed so it's just to emphasise that whilst this group has come together and yes this group came together by the Scottish Government it's actually being discussed in other places so it's very timely that there's a response from the Scottish Government and this is pursued on the question that was asked about trust you're absolutely right in that if this is done in a tokenistic way if this is not resourced well if it's not done coherently or by the Scottish Government yes there absolutely is a risk that people do not trust the process because they see it as an extension of the inequalities that already exist they may see it as an extension of the consultation processes or some things that they already feel far away from which is why we have emphasised the need for coherence the need for good resourcing the need for centres of expertise and a strategy around this to be able to ensure that whatever is implemented is implemented well and coherently to enable that trust I genuinely believe in the evidence suggest if this is done well it goes a long way to improve and repair trust between those making decisions and those feeling the impact of decisions so I understand the question and I think the question is really about pure implementation as opposed to the risk of deliberative democracy in itself and have you identified any areas that public participation is really not suitable for because that as I've said before the damage the risk that can be caused by going down a route specifically have you seen any areas that you would stay clear of because that could be problematic I can come in there so what I would say is I don't think that I can cite you any policy area which is not better enhanced by the public having a say in the decision that affects their life so whether that is budgeting whether that is health whether that is climate justice I don't see an avenue where public participation doesn't make for better fit for purpose decisions and outcomes at the end that matters is the method of participation those citizens assemblies are not necessarily the go-to method it may be a lived experience expert group it may be pursuing participation messes with the third sector through service users it may be participatory budgeting many publics the method matters but I struggle to find any example where the outcome is not improved by citizens participating well Fiona, you would like to come in this as well yes, thank you I think I would agree with Tala but also just to say that I think they work best when there's a very specific focus so that it's not a very wide question that an assembly is considering that it's drilled down into a very specific theme or topic area and I think there's also quite a lot of evidence from citizens assemblies that have already run that actually the capability to discuss some seemingly intractable issues is within an assembly there was the assembly in Ireland about abortion rights for example so from that point of view because it's set up the way that assemblies are with the processes and values in place actually the ability to make sense of some of those trickier issues is there within them okay, thank you and Paul Sweeney you're going to lead some questions on this, Paul thank you, convener noted that the recommendations are set out both in summary and in detail in the report and cover around two themes which are developing a broad range of participation and democratic innovations and using this system as a basis to establish routine use of citizens assemblies in Scotland so just turning to the first theme there seems to be different time periods that are specified so early foundational actions within the current Parliament to May 2026 and longer term ambitions for consideration so we obviously know the length of the current parliamentary session but other time periods are perhaps not as specific so I think we can also note that there are significant asks of the Scottish Government as well that these will be required a unit within the Scottish Government with responsibility for participation and that seems to be a response to the objective to provide an indication of the resources necessary, obviously that will have to be led by Government but there are also a number of recommendations that engage the Parliament specifically noting adopting values, principles and standards for institutionalising participatory and deliverance of democracy supporting upcoming reviews and legislation to embed participation and deliveration across the system consider the proposals of the Citizens Assembly on the future of Scotland for new infrastructure associated with the Scottish Parliament collaborate with local government public services in Parliament to establish and agree clear agenda setting guidelines for all citizens assemblies and to connect to the Scottish Parliament committee system for scrutiny of citizens assembly processes and recommendations so bearing in mind those specific recommendations that engage with Parliament how do those different categories in time periods relate to each other and which are particularly time critical and also in the group as a whole what prioritisation of recommendations took place are there any specific critical recommendations that we should take a particular note of so I'd just like to open up to me perhaps Kelly first of all, thank you Kelly are you this question? I am, I can kick this off with a perspective on this too so yeah thank you for laying out how the recommendations have been set out and as you have already said they're set out over some different time periods I mean foundationally we are really conscious that this work to work well to ensure that it has the resources behind it requires people with the knowledge and expertise essentially driving the delivery of all the different recommendations the bringing together of the different stakeholders that are needed to make this work success and that is where I would just highlight the recommendation there around the establishment of a participation unit and that has very much come from the group's sense that there is just a huge gap really in the responsibility to hold the delivery of many of these recommendations and we think it could be a big point of failure actually if there is not a dedicated set of people with the responsibility to drive this but also I think very importantly over the longer term to learn and to hold and ensure that we're reflecting on the lessons as this is going on so there's like an evaluation and monitoring element that is built into the work of that team too as well as responsibility for essentially supporting the wider civil service and people task with making policy to really understand what this work means and to support them to be able to go out and deliver it in other areas too so I think I would just highlight that as a really important starting point because it is a huge gap that we've highlighted You touched on Parliament and I'm aware that there are recommendations that don't necessarily direct to the Parliament or local government in any particular way and as I mentioned earlier that was done on purpose because I think it's important to say that the group although members of the group talked about the role of local government and central government and Scottish Parliament and society and communities the group had a specific remit that focused on actions that Scottish government needs to take at this point in time but we were really cautious I think to try and respect the autonomy and other parts of the system that I just mentioned have but also really conscious that we need to find ways to involve them to progress this too and again that's why we didn't stray into things like design but we have recommendations that leave space open opportunities and to essentially bring people together behind some of those values, the standards and the principles that we've also reflected in this work too so I think ultimately the recommendations that are here touch on what is an issue for Scotland more broadly and for democracy in Scotland we know that the reality is that we're working in a multi-level system and we need to understand the connection between the different parts of the system so the recommendations have attempted to consider that too and to find ways to do that but again I would just emphasise if we're going to do that we need the resources in order to do it and we need the skilled team of people that can bring people together be those connectors and touching on some comments that have also been made are able to hold and facilitate the spaces that enable those conversations to happen in a way where people feel like they're able to have the voices heard and we can build that kind of trust and consensus behind how this needs to move forward but Tala and Fiona might have some specific thoughts on the recommendations in response to Paul Tala? I can come in there, thank you Kelly and thank you for the question I think the way in which the recommendations have been written out it talks about foundation areas, the current Parliament and long-term ambitions, it's giving the timeline and from my perspective the pressing issue is coherence across Government and Parliament in making sure that this I would never want this to be pursued as an add-on in places where it feels easy to pursue deliberative democracy that is really about being coherently across Government in different areas giving access to influence decisions and have a staking decisions across the board so from my perspective certainly the foundations of bringing people together and that includes those who are under 16s the local Government coming together and understanding what the impact will be for them and what good design and delivery would look like for them it is critical equally the coherence is linked to that centre of expertise within the Scottish Government and the creation of a national participation strategy which again the Royal Society of Edinburgh have also called for all of those things are written out in the current Parliament timeline of over the next few years because that creates the foundation of good implementation and will provide us with an idea of resourcing that is required to enable this to go forward so the prioritisation for me is getting people from different areas of Scotland involved the creation of the participation strategy and centre of expertise is what will enable this to be done well I won't add too much to what's been said already I think one of the other pressing issues as well as starting to develop that coherence and put in place a participation unit is to also maintain momentum in terms of the delivery of these deliberative processes young people, citizens assembling and so on and one of the constraints with setting up a unit within the Government is perceptions about its independence therefore in the longer term the ambition of the group is to move towards this national participation centre which will have full independence of Government and be one of those democratic institutions Paul Sweeney Much for those answers I suppose just to try and establish an example or a particular instance where there could be more rapid movement I noted yesterday for example there was a committee debate on the national planning framework the new fourth national planning framework for example and it was mentioned earlier in the discussion about planning being a particular area where often public engagement can be in the context of a hostile or perceived threat so has there been any specific for example in the case of MPF4 when any specific consideration of actions through this committee or other committees to advance the agenda of a citizens assembly or that type of deliberative democracy approach in reforming the planning system for example is that a particular case that could be something that this committee might take a nice instance of Kelly, who will handle that Briefly I think Fiona would come in here I would say yes I think there is huge opportunity within the planning system to involve people and I think there are some interesting models that you can explore and I don't want to stray too far into design that think about how you have deliberations at the local level and then connect them to conversations that work on a more kind of representative model bringing people together across the country to look at perhaps national approaches and strategies around planning but I don't want to stray too far into design so Fiona I know that you raised this and I'll hand over to you Fiona I think that it would be a perfect area to use a method like this in terms of looking at how the national planning framework can operate to be able to include community interests as well as developers and I think that it's also critical because at the moment we've got the requirement or we've got the local place plans which are a feature of the national planning framework which again is an opportunity for people to get involved that may just be an opportunity for those who are most able and who are most motivated to get involved in the planning system and for people to navigate so from that point of view I think looking at the context of local place plans in terms of how they're accessible how they manage to reflect the voices of marginalised groups and the needs of marginalised groups is critically important within the planning system so a function like this could assist with that Paul Sweeney a negative set of practical opportunities that we might be able to pursue and what was touched on I don't want to sort of job the gun in terms of like what the resourcing might look like but has there been any sort of indicative costings of resources necessary to support the work that you're proposing Yeah, I understand that Scottish Government colleagues we're going to take that forward as a task so I haven't got any concrete information really to share today No problem Sorry No no, Paul, over to you that led me into afergus Ewing in the next steps but go ahead No, it was just if there was any final points any of the members of the panel wanted to make in relation to what implications there are for the Parliament in this report anything that we should very specifically latch on to to take forward as a committee Kelly Yeah, I mean generally I hope you get the sense from this report that there is huge opportunity typically as I've already mentioned we haven't said too much around the Parliament because we wanted to respect the role that the Parliament has but we certainly think you know longer term there is a role for the Parliament in some of the scrutiny work and we have mentioned that in the report but otherwise you know I think we're just very interested and very eager as a group to understand what the next steps are from the Scottish Government and particularly any plans around how some of the early ideas can be resourced knowing that that is really intended to set us up for all of the actions and the recommendations that are hard to follow over the other two time buckets that are there so I think as a group you know as a question at least that I have I'd be very interested to know the response to that when the time comes and I'm very aware that you have a meeting with the minister coming up in June Fiona you were keen to come in here as well Yes, please, thanks I think it would be really helpful for the Parliament to help to hear a lot of the different initiatives that are around participatory and deliberative democracy just now as we spoke about earlier there's also the review of the local governance the local governance review that's going to be entering a second phase and also the review of the community empowerment Scotland act as well as the work of the RSA that Talent mentioned and so on participatory democracy is kind of everybody's business but it's helpful to have academic coherence across Parliament, across Government around all of those initiatives and how they can become greater than the sum of other parts Okay, and finally Talent you wanted to contribute on this section as well Yes, just very quickly the role I think of this committee of Parliament is about scrutiny of this being done well but I've already explained previously that there's a greater risk of not pursuing deliberative democracy measures and not pursuing this work and an equal risk of pursuing it badly so from my perspective I think it's the role of Parliament I think there is a role for this committee to scrutinise it being delivered well, it being delivered with the resources that are required and creating some accountability around that and secondly ensuring that the delivery is focused on marginalised communities having better access to decision making and influence what I would not want to see is a pursuit of a kind of simplified or superficial version of this which gives another route of influence another route of participation for those who already have access to influence and participation so there is a role I believe for this committee, for others, for Parliament the ability of this work to reach out to the furthest and most marginalised communities in Scotland I think that's essential Thank you very much and if colleagues are content we're coming towards the end of our time now so I'd like to ask Fergus Ewing to move into the final section which is really the next steps and the Government reaction Fergus Well thank you convener and good morning to the witnesses for the work that you've carried out I wanted to ask about next steps and Government and other reaction and really two questions convener for each of the witnesses in turn first of all whether the group has had any initial reaction to its recommendations from the Scottish Government or indeed from anyone else and if so what has that reaction been and secondly what the group can set out what the next steps are for the work that it has done but also the next steps for the group itself Kelly Hi, I will give a response as best I can although I may not have all the information about some of the next steps that are planned for the Scottish Government so the first thing to say is that this work and the recommendations that we've made we really appreciate are challenging and they require elements of changing culture and that can be a difficult task so we're delighted that the Parliament and COSLA for example were able to join the group and I think it's important just to note that so in terms of reaction Members of the group did meet with George Adam and Patrick Harvey in February to present the draft recommendations and we had a fantastic discussion in that setting although we haven't received any kind of formal written response or anything like that so I'm currently aware of and I'm not sure if that is currently planned but we are again aware that there is a meeting planned with this committee and the Minister in June so we'll be watching that with interest and to see any outcomes from that meeting I'm aware that the report has resource implications and that costing the delivery of those recommendations is a task for the Scottish Government it's not something that the group was asked to do but we hope that Ministers will make the necessary commitments so that the ambition for participatory and delivered democracy can be realised so in terms of next steps I will certainly be looking out for that and I would also be looking out this work absolutely needs people with the knowledge and skills to be a driving force and to support colleagues across the civil society across the civil service and indeed other partners in Scotland and across the system to deliver the ambition that we set out in this report and I think the ambition that is now becoming expected in different areas and reports that have been published to this effect over recent years at TALAC touched on earlier so I'd absolutely urge members to support those efforts to build that capacity and to ensure efficient and effective delivery of these recommendations and I also hope that other actors across the system will be proactively engaged and given the opportunity to shape these plans so that we're progressing democracy across Scotland as Scotland and I think that does need co-ordination and that is again the point of dedicated resource in terms of next steps for us I mean I will say that there is absolutely continued interest in the next steps for these recommendations and seeing a plan for how they may be delivered and members of the working group would absolutely like to be kept informed of the progress at the very least and any opportunities to be further involved with these recommendations and ensuring that they do become actions I think we'd be very keen to hear in terms of next steps I think we're very much waiting for further opportunities to be involved as a group but I know that some work will be on-going in Scottish Government at the moment but I'm not best placed to answer that and I think as a group as well we also welcome many follow-up questions that might aid the work of this committee Thank you very much and I'll come to each of our other two witnesses in turn, they're mindful of the time but at TALAC would you like to comment further or has Kelly could have somethings up Kelly has certainly somethings up I want to take up to the question Fiona, is there anything you'd like to add? Fergus, coming back to you is there anything you'd like to add further to that? Well I wonder whether Kelly and the other witnesses think that an essential ingredient to something happening as opposed to not much happening or the momentum being lost that it's essential that one witness one minister, I'm sorry Scottish Government drive this forward and that also there'd be a clear lead civil servant official also driving it forward so that there is someone who if you like will deliver momentum but also someone with whom the buck will stop I mean briefly I would certainly welcome that I think that civil servant will need a skilled and experienced team to help them I think that's a good starting point personally Fiona, you would like to comment on that Yes, I do think it's critical to maintain momentum I think what we tend to do quite a lot of the time is try something do it once everybody thinks it's good we generate a lot of enthusiasm a lot of discussion and a lot of plans around it and then the plans take a long time to come out with something else in the later on down the line in terms of this topic public participation it's really critical that we continue to have some public participation processes and make sure that we're actually building awareness of citizens of those processes and the developments that are taking place and being shaped up at national level so I think it's a really important step Thank you, Fergus Just one final thought I wonder if the point I think it was Talat made about reaching those that are not normally taking part in any liaison contact participation in democracy of the Scottish Government or anybody else in public life if the duty rests on Government ministers and indeed MSPs to go out and meet those people and be proactive in getting out there and going to visit people particularly once Covid is over and we can get back into normal life and really again the buck rests with ministers in particular but MSPs have directed people, councillors and so on in general and if that is not something that should be the primary driver of this on the basis that we have individual personal responsibility in whatever capacity we have in public life to try to reach out to those who are disadvantaged, underrepresented and uninvolved Any final thoughts? Thank you That is the basis of a strong and accessible representative democracy and I would certainly hope that that is something that MSPs take very seriously and more of it needs to happen Certainly access to them as MSPs to their constituents and to Parliament is hugely important but it is different from what we are talking about here when we talk about deliberative democracy and particular systems and processes that are created to enable conversations on issues related to health or poverty climate justice transport, whatever it might be it is also important that it is not transactional which is MSPs asking a question for example surgeries within constituencies that MSPs pursue part of deliberative democracy is also an opportunity for it to be explorative around issues like Fiona was saying, not simply when something goes wrong and you are responding to it I believe that going out and the buck stopping with MSPs on marginalised communities having access to representative democracy is hugely important and a cornerstone of competent democracy but it is actually parallel to adjacent to the deliberative democracy measures both are required focus on marginalised communities and they come together to create a strong and competent democracy as to set things out Thank you very much and on that note I think I'm going to draw our session to an end I'd like really to thank Kelly McBride, Fiona Garvin and Talat Yaku really for their very comprehensive and helpful answers I think that's been a very useful discussion and it's very much complemented I think the evidence session we've previously had so thank you all very much for your contribution and your participation today and on that note I'm going to suspend the meeting for a few moments, thank you Welcome back and to this is now our third item today which is to consider some continued petitions the first of which is Petition PE1723 which is essential tremor treatment in Scotland and this was lodged by Mary Ramsey and it was last considered by us on 19 January it calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to raise awareness of essential tremor and to support the introduction of ultrasound scanner for treating people in Scotland Rhoda Grant will be joining us again but before I invite Rhoda to speak just to say that under a last consideration we agreed to write to both the Scottish Government and the National Services Division we've had a response from the Scottish Government which indicated that the National Services Division is expected to resume applications for the commissioning of new services this month and that I think was roughly the timetable that was being suggested when we last considered the petition The National Services Division continues to engage with the clinical team in Tayside to understand what would be required to provide focus on ultrasound in Scotland should there be a decision taken that that would be the preferred route the submission informs us that the Scottish Government is not yet committed to funding an MRG, FUS Service in 2223 and that the evidence space will inform considerations about this future investment The Scottish Government also provided information about its work to raise awareness of essential tremor among patients and healthcare professionals and the petitioner's most recent submission highlights that there are in fact 100,000 people in Scotland with essential tremor a figure which suggests she suggests does not include those waiting to see specialists or those who have been misdiagnosed Rhoda, you are with us we're not necessarily taking a lot of additional evidence today because we are waiting now to hear what progress can be made but is there anything that you would like to contribute to our further understanding? Just a very quick comment convener I think I'm reasonably disappointed with the Scottish Government response and that it just goes over what they had said before there's not an awful lot of difference there and I also note that the National Services Division have not responded themselves but they did see the NHS Tayside and were due to meet them at the end of January when we had the last meeting and they might be in a position to look at a formal application in either May or June of this year so I think it would be important maybe to keep this petition open so that we can see what conclusion is reached by the National Services Division and certainly what we know towards the summer of this year and I think Mary has pointed out the number of people affected by this condition it's really important that we make some progress and I think just to reiterate as well that Mary Ramsey has stated that she would be happy to give further evidence to the committee if they wished and Ian Sharpe who has benefited from focused ultrasound treatment has also made that offer so really just to encourage the committee to keep the petition open and to keep scrutinising this issue in the hope that we make some progress thank you very much for that Rhoda Grant I very much believe that we will keep the petition open we are really still awaiting some of the key information that I think we felt would be critical to our coming to a further determination but any colleagues like to make any further recommendations David Torrance thank you convener I would like to recommend that we keep the petition open and do so on behalf of the National Specialist Service Committee to highlight the evidence received by committee on essential tremor treatment and recommend that any application of a roll-out of MRG FUS across Scotland is given early consideration when the application of process opens in April 2022 and in writing to the national service division the committee could ask for further details of the decision making process and timescales for the next steps should an application be successful and to write to the Scottish Government to highlight the committee's engagement with the National Specialist Service Committee and to ask the Scottish Government whether it will commit to a public awareness campaign should any application prove successful and in doing so I would ask it in writing to the Scottish Government the committee may also wish to ask for further information about the national professional patient and public reference group including its role, remit and membership thank you very much David Torrance are any other recommendations and colleagues content? I should say in passing that and just to road a grant to reassure her I think we were given to understand that the national services division and the Scottish Government coordinated the response that we received so I understand that there was input into that albeit we didn't receive something separately colleagues content that we keep the petition open and we write to see just whether we can expedite some of the information that I think we're looking to receive we are and I lost sight of my other two colleagues but I assume they're in agreement as well thank you we move then to petition number 1859 to retain Falconer's rights to practice upland falconry in Scotland lodged by Barry Blyther it was last considered by us in the first of December and calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to amend the animals and wildlife penalties protections and powers Scotland act of 2020 to allow mountain heirs to be hunted for the purposes of falconry that meeting in December we really agreed to write the Scottish Government to seek its views on how it expects captive falcons to differentiate between legal and illegal species we did think the whole thing sounded a bit well difficult to follow through and for example how a bird of prey is supposed to tell the difference between a rabbit or a mountain hare when it's exhibiting its natural behaviours the committee also asked the Scottish Government to clarify when falconers would face prosecution should their bird take a mountain hare including what the penalties might be for a breach in how the current legislation is enforced the Scottish Government's response states that it is the responsibility of the falconer to eliminate or at least significantly reduce risk by only undertaking falconry where mountain hare are unlikely to be present and here I feel I felt that we had verged on ridiculous in that it then transpired that the Government's definition of where mountain hare is unlikely to be present amounts to some 2.5% of Scotland with 97.5% of the landscape allegedly being well I'm not saying riddled with mountain hares but certainly with mountain hares present to the point where I almost felt the Scottish Government were advocating should be trained in the use of sat nav because they were to apparently understand that the M8, the heart hill service stations Aberdeen and points towards the coast were where they would be able to go about their business so I mean all of that struck me as being slightly removed from the reality and can have played to the questions that we were considering the final submission from the petitioner focuses on the role of falconry in pest control pointing out that there is an exemption for falconry so that gulls can be deterred even though they carry the same level of protections as mountain hare and the Scottish Government submission notes that Police Scotland are responsible for enforcing legislation and that penalties for wildlife crime vary depending on what offence has been committed Fergus Ewing, I know you're quite keen to contribute to this particular item in the first instance Thank you very much convener and I would endorse the comments that you've made entirely I do think that falconry albeit not a huge area of life in Scotland is nonetheless an important part of rural life and the rural economy and that lots of things that falconers do are valuable and of real worth to society and I just wanted very briefly to say that I've seen myself falconers teach children about birds of prey at agricultural shows, at game fairs like at Moe and Schoon and they also take birds into school so children learn about birds of prey directly and probably primarily or even solely from falconers. Also in speaking to a leading falconer, not the petitioner but another one over the weekend I know that they also rehabilitate birds they make them better and that surely is something that should be recognised and they also play a part in control of pests such as gulls overpopulation of gulls as has been mentioned and they are part of the rural tapestry convener and I just say that because I was very disappointed when I noticed the response of the Scottish Government the first one back last year when they didn't actually value falconry, they just said they recognised the history and culture I thought that was very disappointing turning to where we go from now convener and bound to reflect that when the ban on mountain hair culling was introduced in 220 the validity report which preceded it did not consider falconry at all as far as I know no one mentioned falconry in the stage 3 debate which was the first time where the proposed ban was introduced and therefore falconers are I think in a unique situation convener in my 22 years in this Parliament they not only have not had a fair hearing about their activity being banned they have had no hearing whatsoever they have been completely ignored and that does seem to me to be relevant of the grim world that was created by the author Franz Kafka where people are banned from doing their preferred occupation without any opportunity to be heard and have that fair hearing that is the first principle of natural justice Audi, Alter and Parting so where do we go from here I mean I would suggest that there should be oral evidence that the petitioner should have an opportunity to be heard and to put forward the very strong arguments I thought that the activities of falconers only account for a very small proportion of mountain hairs that are taken I think 1000 Dr Nick Fox said in his supplementary submission that we've just received and certainly a fraction of those taken by shooting so I think the petitioner should be heard and I would recommend that Dr Nick Fox also accompany him if he so wishes so that the petitioner is not alone and that we also hear from Nature Scott who have licensing powers which could be part of the solution and as well as that convener we hear from the Scottish Government I know that this committee is time constrained but I do think particularly in the fact that this is a group in society that has not had any hearing whatsoever from the Scottish Parliament that the purpose of this committee if you like is to allow David to take on Goliath and our particular role is to equip David with a sling thank you thank you very much for that Mr Ewing and I very much concur with the recommended route and I wonder if colleagues do as well I mean when I read the Scottish Government's response I too was slightly disappointed I had hoped that given the circumstances and the fact that this had really emerged out of a stage 3 amendment that there might have been a route through discussion with the Government that would have led to some sort of resolution but I did feel that it was rather a disdainful brush-off to the issue that we are trying to explore and that taking evidence does seem to be a reasonable course of action our colleagues are content that we proceed on the basis that Mr Ewing has agreed and it might be useful as well just to write to the Game and Wildlife Conservatives Conservation Trust and the RSPCB just to obtain their wider concern about the impact that this would have in relation to conservation are we content with that? we are, thank you very much that moves us then to petition number 1877 which is to provide three cameras for all frontline NHS staff lodged by Alex Wallace and last considered by us on 19 January we agreed then to write to the Scottish Ambulance Service and the Scottish Government to find out more about the body camera trial that we understood was under way I understand from the responses received that the trial is still in the scoping and planning phase due to the extreme pressures being experienced due to the pandemic Scottish Ambulance Service listed the ways in which it intends to evaluate the technology and stated that the timescale for initial evaluation will now be towards the end of the year given that we have already undertaken to await the outcome of this evaluation that would seem a sensible way forward Alexander Stewart? I acknowledge the fact that the pandemic has had a knock-on effect on this whole process but I do believe that if we wait until we have had the pilot evaluation it would be the most sensible way to go forward and that would give us the opportunity at that point to then write and continue to communicate with the Scottish Ambulance Service on how that has happened and what outcomes have taken from the pilot and the evaluation for the next step so I do think we continue with that and just see how we progress in the timescales that the sector and the Ambulance Service have indicated to us It does mean rather extended time that we have to place before we are able to consider the petition in any informed way but I think that that is probably the right course of action Are colleagues content with that suggestion? We are Petition number 1902 to allow an appeal process for community participation requests lodged by Maria Aitken on behalf of the Keithness health action team We are joined again by Rhoda Grant who will call on the Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to allow an appeal process for community participation requests under the Community Empowerment Act Scotland 2015 We considered this last on the 17th of November last year and agreed to write the Scottish Community Development Centre to ask about the work it was carrying out to explore options for an appeal process We have now had a response indicating that a working group has been set up It comprises of people and organisations with a particular interest and participation requests and I understand that the group was due to meet sometime between when we last considered the petition and this month Rhoda Grant, is there anything you would like to... Are you still... We've lost Rhoda Grant so we can't hear from Rhoda but again I think we are probably wanting to chase up any recommendations David Torrance I think we should really chase up the Scottish Community Development Centre to seek an update on the working group's consideration of potential models for an appeals process and to ask specifically when it plans to report to the Scottish Government if that report will include recommendations on the introduction of an appeals process and what further engagement it anticipates with communities on this issue Are colleagues content to keep the petition open on the basis just suggested and take the actions we are? Petition number 1914 The banning of school uniforms and secondary schools lodged by Matthew Lewis Simpson which calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to remove the requirement for school uniforms for older school pupils and the petitioner cites a range of reasons for bringing forward the petition including uniform costs for low income families pupil choice and the need for comfortable and weather appropriate clothing options in the 19th of January and at that time we agreed to write to the Scottish Government, Children and Young People's Commissioner Scotland, the National Parent Forum of Scotland and the Scottish Youth Parliament at that last consideration we also heard from the Scottish Government that it was in the process of committing to update its school uniform guidance and that a public consultation in relation to that was imminent we've now received responses from the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills and the other stakeholders we contacted including the Scottish Youth Parliament who I think enabled themselves to come to a determination on the issue which I thought was interesting I think at this stage we probably do wish to keep the petition open particularly pending this consultation the Scottish Government is about to undertake and we now believe was likely to be during the course of the summer are there any other comments or recommendations colleagues would like to make Alexander Stewart? Once again we'd concur that we do keep the petition open and yes we have had the information back from the Scottish Government about the consultation but during this consultation it's very important that we highlight the evidence that's been received and we also ensure and we seek assurances that children and young people will be fully involved in the consultation process including the co-design of the consultation itself to ensure that they do have that willingness to be participative and as we discussed in the past the identification and identity of a school uniform sometimes has a focus but these young people have a right to have the opportunity to express their views and if they can do that through the consultation we may then receive more information that may help us and make a decision. Our colleagues agreed to keep the petition open and to proceed on the basis that we've just discussed we are petition number 1916 Request a public inquiry into the management of the rest and be thankful project lodged by councillors Douglas Philan and Donald Kelly which asked the Scottish calls and the Scottish Parliament to instigate a public inquiry regarding the political and financial management of the A83 rest and be thankful project this project aims to provide a permanent solution for the route again we last considered this in January and we agreed to write to the Scottish Government to clarify whether it intended to carry out into the management of the project we've received an update from Transport Scotland and they make the point that the public inquiry would take a protracted period of time and would actually only review all that has been discussed to date but really would not necessarily identify any further solution David Torrance will know and certainly I can recall that this is an area of discussion that this committee has been involved in for a very long time the public inquiry may only look at everything that's happened to date but the implication from Transport Scotland of their seeking not to pursue that route is that it would delay them actually being able to take forward a viable project it's the taking forward of a or even the identifying of a viable project that really I think is the big overhanging issue in all of this so I'm unwilling to close the petition at this point but that's not necessarily that I don't accept some of the arguments but I wouldn't want to rule out a public inquiry if Transport Scotland and the Scottish Government are unable to actually move this project forward in some way and so I would like to suggest that we go back to the Transport Scotland making clear that implicit in the evidence that the submission we received from them is an intention to do something and that we will consider afresh whether a public inquiry is necessary contingent on whether there is actually any progress on the issue are we content with that? David Torrance I would agree with that like yourself thinking oh god it's two sessions ago now we have been at the rest and thankful to see you made but like yourself I wouldn't like to see a petition closed so I'll go with your recommendations so while not necessarily not accepting the public inquiry route I do want to see Transport Scotland take something forward with this and I'd rather not close this petition and find that we have yet another one coming later on in time is Fergus Ewing you'd like to contribute? Just to support what David Torrance and yourself have said convener and just to make the point as I think we all know that for the people that are served by the rest would be thankful this really is a hugely important matter so I entirely agree with the conditional approach that you're taking and it would be very useful to get a much clearer idea from Transport Scotland and the minister about timescales that that viable proposal will be forthcoming and indeed what is prevented the bringing forward of viable proposals because this has been going on for a very very long time far too long for the people on the peninsula served by the road thank you very much in which case I take it colleagues we are agreed and we'll proceed on that basis that brings us to item 4 which is the consideration of two new partitions the first of these and as I always qualify when we enter into the consideration of new partitions for those who might be joining us to see us consider their petition to say that we in the first instance do forward the petition to the Scottish Government in order that we can get some preliminary views which help inform our consideration of the petition here as a committee the first petition is petition number 1926 which is to expand universal free school meals for all nursery, primary and secondary school pupils and it has been brought forward by Alison Dowling Alison has lodged the petition as she believes urgent action is needed at a national level to address food poverty for children and young people in Scotland she suggests that food poverty is sometimes hidden within schools particularly among secondary school aged pupils and she notes that whilst there is an extension of free school meals planned for younger pupils there are currently no plans in place for older secondary school aged pupils the Scottish Government indicates in its submission to the committee that the focus is on expanding those free school meals in primary schools however it also notes that during the course of this parliamentary session we are also committed to piloting approaches to universal meal provision in secondary schools so I wonder whether members of any comments or suggestions as to how we might take this petition forward I'm not sure we're lost my screen's gone blank we've lost Paul Sweeney Colin David-Turns Thank you convener I'd like to keep the petition open and in doing so I'd like to write to several stakeholders I think that this is a really important area that needs to be looked into and these stakeholders would include child poverty action group children and young people's commissioners at Scotland, COSLA the community food and health Scotland organisation who works within the qualities and barriers to health and affordable food and the trust of trust and I'd also like to write to the Scottish Government because everything has a cost so I'd like to see what investment would be needed to make this possible in all the nurseries, primary schools and secondary schools across Scotland Thank you convener Thank you very much David-Turns Fergus Ewing Thank you Miss Step in our communications Paul Sweeney is there anything you'd like to add? I think there's definitely a merit in this from a social justice point of view and to create this as a universal public good I think also what's worth considering is that it's often talked about in terms of the cost of infrastructure and the cost of provision but there's increasingly advances in community food growing and community food provisions so perhaps it needs to be considered in a wider context about how the community's food resilience is actually undertaken so there's an interesting project in Glasgow for example where community food social enterprise Locavory have actually taken over part of public parks to start growing produce and it can be sold both commercially but also used for food justice projectional through pantry networks etc you know this could all be part of the picture you know so perhaps there's a bigger piece of work to be done there about how we actually improve the supply if you like of food in the local community and this could be part of this exercise as well because the public good than just simply the mechanical exercise of providing catering for schools you know Thank you for that and I'm quite happy to incorporate that into the request for information that we may be seeking to obtain from the organisations identified thereby David Torrance on that basis we're happy to keep the petition open and to take forward the gathering of information as was suggested a moment ago we are our final petition this morning is the new petition 1928 which is to provide free rail travel for disabled people who meet the qualifications for free bus travel and this is lodged by David Gallant and David notes that many disabled people who qualify for free bus travel are unable to benefit from it due to the withdrawal of rural bus services and the lack of access to suitable toilet facilities on many of the buses that actually operate still within rural areas he also points out that train fares are unaffordable so train travel is not currently a viable alternative in these areas we've received a submission from Site Scotland highlighting the need for consistent national policy for rail travel across Scotland which entitles blind and partially sighted people and their companions to free rail travel Site Scotland points out that there are currently different concessionary and companion schemes in different areas potentially causing confusion to passengers and rail staff. Transport Scotland has also sent us a submission and I should state that this was drafted prior to Scotland rail's move to public ownership but it indicates that Scotland rail has no plans to introduce free travel for disabled people whilst pointing out that ScotRail offers discounted fares through the disabled persons rail card and that there is free travel for blind passengers via a scheme operated by local authorities Transport Scotland also highlights a planned fair fares review to ensure a sustainable and integrated approach to public transport fares in the future suggesting that existing discounts and concessionary schemes across a range of transport will be considered as part of this review this is an interesting new petition and I wonder if colleagues have got any comments they would like to make anything David Torrance I'd like to keep the petition open and I wonder if we could ask an evidence session with the petitioner and site Scotland a future meeting Alexander Stewart I would concur with that it's very important because as you've identified there seems to be a mix match across regions and areas when it comes to individuals who have a disability and them getting travel and support and I think it's also the Transport Scotland to request an update of what you indicated their fair fares review because I think that's important to ensure that there is consideration for disabled people across the piece Thank you Any other colleagues wish to contribute or are we content to proceed on the basis of those recommendations I think we are and on that note we will now move into private session Thank you very much for joining us this morning