- The Convener (Mr Frank McAveety):
Good afternoon, everyone, and welcome to the meeting.
I am conscious that we are in what John Wheatley College referred to as a tight and intimate meeting room. This is one of the biggest turnouts that the Public Petitions Committee has had in the past couple of years, since I became a member of it. However, we will try to squeeze more folk into the room, as it is important that people see the work of their Public Petitions Committee in progress. We will do our best to meet demand.
First, I will explain some formalities. From 2 o'clock onwards, the committee will discuss petitions that it has received. Michelle Stewart and others who support PE1225, on Clostridium difficile, are at the table in front of us at the moment because the seating arrangements are so tight. They can take part in our initial discussion.
In case I am unfamiliar to people, I point out that I am the convener of the committee. A fairly substantial complement of Scottish parliamentarians is here, including committee members, substitute committee members and the local constituency member, Margaret Curran. Margaret Curran has expressed interest in a couple of issues that we will discuss; she is not here simply because the committee is in her constituency. I welcome her to the meeting.
Agenda item 1 is grandly titled "Inquiry into the public petitions process". We want to find out how the Public Petitions Committee is working, and the views of members of the public on whether it can work better and how we can make it more effective and accountable.
We have already had meetings in the Scottish Parliament in which we have taken evidence on the petitions process from members of the public, and we have committed ourselves to taking the committee out of the Parliament to different parts of Scotland during the inquiry. We have been to Duns in the south of Scotland; we are in Easterhouse today; and we intend to go to Inverness, Dingwall, Alness, Ullapool or whatever other location we think is most appropriate. The purpose of our visits is to hear from diverse communities about how they think the committee can work.
There are three important things about the Public Petitions Committee. First, it is unlike any other constitutional structure. The committee is one of the most advanced in Europe, if not the world, in its commitment to engaging with members of the public.
Secondly, individuals can petition the committee on as many varied issues as can be imagined. We have received some very modest petitions and some very well-supported petitions, but members of the committee have an obligation to engage with all petitioners—we must see every petition that is placed in front of us. Very few petitions can be ruled inadmissible under the Scotland Act 1998 or on the basis that they are not relevant to Scottish parliamentarians.
The third and most important point is that those who engage with the Public Petitions Committee think that that is a valuable and worthwhile experience. The problem is that, according to research that we carried out recently, most of the folk who engage with the committee are middle aged, male and middle class and have university degrees. We want to find a way of ensuring that those who wish to petition the Parliament reflect the reality of Scotland—where not everyone is male and middle class or has a university degree—and are not concentrated in four or five parliamentary constituencies, which, the evidence suggests, is the case at present.
We need to hear from you, as members of the public, about how we can make the petitions process more effective. I have probably spoken for far too long. There are people in the room who have known me over the years. Twenty-one years ago, I used to sit in rooms here with one or two folk who are in the public gallery; I hope that they are as quiet now as they were then. Members of the committee want to ask a series of questions. The format for today's meeting will give us an opportunity to ask those questions and you, as members of the public, an opportunity to respond. There is a roving microphone; Franck David and Eileen Martin are in the public gallery to ensure that it is available to people, if they wish to contribute.
I invite the first observation from members of the committee. [Interruption.] The clerk is giving me the rules. If you wish to speak, indicate that by raising your hand. The microphone will be passed to you; wait until you get it before speaking, so that you can be heard by everyone. If you would prefer to stand, you may do so. There will be an Official Report of the meeting. Once you have the microphone, you should say your name, for the benefit of official report staff; if you are a member of a relevant organisation, you may indicate that, too. Am I all right now?
- Fergus Cochrane (Clerk):
Yes.
- The Convener:
Thank you. That is why I have a committee clerk beside me. I invite opening comments, first from members of the committee and then from members of the public.
- Nicol Stephen (Aberdeen South) (LD):
It is a great pleasure to be here and to see so many people in the public gallery. Little did you know that you were about to appear in the Scottish Parliament's Official Report. I hope that as many of you as possible will be able to ask questions and answer some of our questions. David Chandler and Michelle Stewart, who are sitting at the table, have some experience of the petitions procedure, because they are about to present their petition to us. However, how many of the people in the public gallery have been involved in submitting a petition to the Scottish Parliament Public Petitions Committee? Raise your hand if you have. I see that just under half of you have experience of the committee; that is a good starting point.
My first simple question is addressed to all of you, but those with experience of the committee may want to answer first. What do you think the Scottish Parliament petitions process should be there for? Is it currently achieving the objectives that you think should be in place for the committee? Who would like to have a go at that question first?
- The Convener:
Michelle Stewart is here at the beginning of a big process. How has the process been for you so far? Are there any lessons that we should learn from it?
- Michelle Stewart (C Diff Justice Group):
The problem with the question "How is the process as a whole?" is that each person who has been involved in it can talk only about what they have done. In our case, it has been fairly straightforward. Before, we did not have a clue what the Public Petitions Committee was. We had never heard of it and did not realise that it was a way of going forward. The convener talks about middle-class males with university degrees logging on to the Government's website every week and signing petitions, but that is not true of people in our area—that is not what we do.
The process needs to be more open. More people need to know about it. They need to know that submitting a petition is something that they can do if they are not happy with something or if they want Parliament to listen to them. It was only through working with Jackie Baillie that we found out about the petitions process as a way forward. A lot of people out there have not been told about the Public Petitions Committee—you need to tell them about it.
- Nicol Stephen:
Perhaps I can ask the question in a different way. I direct my question at the people who just put their hands in the air. You can put your hand in the air again and we can then stick a microphone underneath your nose, but it would be better if there were volunteers. Can you briefly tell us about your experience? What were the positive things about it? What were the negatives?
- Sheila Chandler (C Diff Justice Group):
I am part of the C diff Justice Group, too. I cannot add anything to what Michelle Stewart said. We are all here for the same reason. I cannot add anything different.
- Nicol Stephen:
Are most of the people who put their hand in the air here for the C diff petition? Can anybody put their hand in the air who is not involved with the C diff petition?
- Tina McGeever:
We submitted a petition over a year ago. When we discovered the petitions process, the assistance that we got from the clerk to the committee and the Parliament to take our petition forward was totally positive. I cannot be more positive about that.
The main thing is finding out about the petitions process in the first place. That is a big, big thing. I found out about it only because my sister found it on the Parliament's website. Barack Obama is on Facebook and I think that the Pope was on YouTube a while ago. Perhaps you need to start thinking about that type of thing. You might also allow young people to learn what the process is about through having information about it in schools.
Once we got there, the whole process was very positive, which is why we are back here today.
- Jane Boyce:
I am the chair of the Easterhouse community reference group—that is among my many hats. I have never been to anything like this before, and I hope that I can learn. I am 100 per cent behind everything that has been said. We need you guys to listen to what the public says—in petition form or in any form. [Interruption.] And I hope that somebody buys some oil for that door.
- The Convener:
I remind you that you can petition the Parliament on any issue.
- George Darroch:
I have been involved with Tina McGeever's petition.
Nicol Stephen asked why we should have a petitions process and what it is about. I found out about it in relation to an issue of family concern, which we felt was also of public interest and concern. The person involved did not live in the same constituency as me, so when I contacted my MSP, they were limited in what they could do. When Tina discovered the existence of the Public Petitions Committee and what it was supposed to do, we embarked on this journey.
The issue was initially private but became something that we felt was of public concern and should be opened up at that level. Whether it can achieve anything is an on-going process. Our petition is still open and will be discussed later this afternoon. The resilience that the Public Petitions Committee has shown has been really encouraging.
- Patrick McGuire (Thompsons Solicitors):
I will make a couple of general remarks. I am a solicitor with Thompsons Solicitors. We do a lot of work with trade unions throughout the country. In that capacity, I have personally been involved in a lot of different areas of the Scottish Parliament, including the justice committees, assisting members with members' bills, and, of course, this committee.
There is no doubt that the Scottish Parliament is the most accessible Parliament. You have made the point already, convener, and I agree with it entirely. As far as I am concerned, this committee is the jewel in the crown of that accessibility. People can come to the committee and put their points, and that is a wonderful thing. It is just a shame that that might be marred by the general public not knowing enough about it. As wonderful as this committee is, and as accessible as the Scottish Parliament is, if the public are not being told enough, that needs to be addressed.
- The Convener:
Are there any other observations on that broad theme? Three people here have recognised that the level of awareness at the early stage is not as high as it should be. I am pleased to hear that we are—I hope—handling in an effective way the experiences of people who are able to take their petitions through to the committee. It is always a test, however, because petitioners might not get everybody to agree with them. That is what happens in public office, too. Somebody might have a good go, and they might feel strongly about an issue, but others may disagree. People need to know that their issue is being properly dealt with and effectively interrogated.
The next question is whether people get a solution at the end of the process. A number of folk here today have submitted petitions. They might not get everything that they ask for, but they will at least start to shift the nature and direction of the debate. That is good, but how do we make more people aware of the Public Petitions Committee? How do we encourage people who feel excluded for lots of reasons when it comes to dealing with politicians or systems? Michelle Stewart touched on the key point that, collectively, every one of us has to listen more effectively, act on the concerns that are raised and deliver for people. How do we get to that stage sooner?
There are folk in this room from the east end of Glasgow and other urban parts of Scotland who have been engaging in such processes for generations. They want their views to be heard, but they cannot quite get through the bureaucracy. The Parliament was established as an open and transparent body, and we need to demonstrate that in how we conduct our business.
I would like to hear some views about how we can improve.
- Marion Patterson:
Are you teaching kids in high school about the political side of the Scottish Parliament and how they can access it?
- The Convener:
The Parliament has information and education packs available for primary school and secondary school students. However, all members would concede that there is an issue with facilities for those wishing to come through to the Parliament being oversubscribed. It is difficult to come through with a group from a school, because the demand is so high.
I am not involved in teaching any more, but colleagues who teach tend to find information materials on the Parliament website that they can utilise in the classroom. Those materials assist them should they wish to engage a bit further.
The other point involves ordinary citizens. If an issue has got someone really annoyed, how can they get the Parliament to understand their concerns? The beauty of the Parliament's Public Petitions Committee is that people do not need 100,000 signatures—they might only get 10, but the petition can still come before the committee. In fact, it has to, by statute. It is a matter of getting folk to utilise the system a bit more effectively.
- Marion Patterson:
I was asking whether you actually teach young people, before they become adults and voters, about the process for accessing Parliament.
- Nicol Stephen:
The Scottish Parliament has an education section, and there are a lot of initiatives involving pupils coming to the Parliament. Every week in Parliament, we see a huge number of schoolkids. There are also initiatives where MSPs and parliamentary staff go out to schools, through which pupils learn about the Parliament. You are right, however: it is not possible at the moment to make certain that every pupil in every class in every school learns about the Parliament and the Public Petitions Committee. We need to spread the word. Although, judging by the number of children who come to and learn about the Parliament each week, we are doing really well in comparison with other Parliaments, we could still do a lot more.
If you asked the average 14-year-old about the Scottish Parliament, they would probably not have huge awareness of the Public Petitions Committee. Probably, few kids use the committee. I do not know, but I guess that few petitions come directly from children. That is another issue.
- The Convener:
One of the key reasons for our inquiry into the public petitions process is that Young Scot petitioned the Parliament on the need to review the committee's role 10 years on. I am at an age when I am perplexed by technology, but that is not the case for youngsters. Technology and the ways in which youngsters communicate have moved far beyond what I am used to. We need to understand how young people communicate, because they are saying that the Scottish Parliament has to catch up with what is happening out there, with texting, mobiles, the internet and various other tools.
Jamie McGrigor, who has kindly come along as a substitute member for a colleague who is unavailable, wants to comment. After that, somebody at the back and somebody at the front want to comment.
- Jamie McGrigor (Highlands and Islands) (Con):
On the point about MSPs going out to schools, there is an education outreach programme, of which I have been a part a good many times. I am an MSP for the Highlands and Islands, which is a big lot of the top of Scotland and a lot of the left-hand side. It is amazing how many pupils from primary age onwards know a lot about the Parliament before we get there, and they are not hesitant in asking questions. I am enthusiastic about the public petitions process, but I am sure that we can do much better in advertising it as a tool that people can use to take their woes or anything else to the Parliament. As far as the Parliament's education service is concerned, however, I think it is doing well.
- Nicola Ryan:
I am doing a higher national certificate in working with communities and a professional development award in housing law. I was happy to hear talk about how the Parliament is going to concentrate on letting youth know about the public petitions process, but how are you going to let people like me know about it, or provide me with that information so that I can facilitate things in my local community? What efforts will be made?
- The Convener:
Can I ask you a question in return? What are the most effective tools for getting information to you, if we want to do that? How do you get to know about other activities or things that could interest you?
- Nicola Ryan:
At the moment, the most effective tool for me is the college, because I am there every day, but there are many different groups out there that need to be targeted but do not have access to the internet. I understand and recognise the importance of stepping up marketing of the process and letting people know about it, but there will still be people out there who do not have that access. You need to consider how you are going to reach them, because they make up the majority of local communities. I am talking about people such as single parents and—I hate to say it—underprivileged children who do not have access to the internet. Perhaps no effort is made to take them to the library and they are not catching up at school. The petitions process just seems to be such an important thing. I will be honest with you. I only learned about what the Public Petitions Committee is yesterday, when I was asked to attend today. I cannot believe that this vehicle exists. Why is it not being used?
- The Convener:
That re-emphasises why we are not getting submissions from what I would call the more conventionally ordinary parts of Scotland. People are busy doing other things and they are not being made aware of how to use the process, whereas those who are in the know and in the loop use it disproportionately.
I would recommend that we try to get more resources to promote the process, but the clerks would be terrified at taking that to the chief executive. If we are serious about democratic engagement, we need to ask which tools reach people rather than just assuming that people will come to us because the committee is part of the Parliament.
Are there any views on that? If people do not have conclusive views now, we will be happy to receive written submissions later. If you discuss the topic with other individuals or groups, we will welcome their views as part of our inquiry. Even if you were made aware of the petitions process only in the past 24 hours, we will take on board any thoughts or ideas that you want to send us after today's meeting. They will help us to frame a good report on the consultation that we are undertaking.
Thanks for your honesty, Nicola. The communities that I represent are similar to the communities here, and I recognise that there are groups that do not have the easy access to technology that other groups have. It is important that we keep that in mind as well.
- George McGuinness MBE:
I am the chair of Baillieston community reference group, and I am one of the dinosaurs the convener talked about, who have been at the game for a long time. Politicians keep saying that it is the people's Parliament. One easy solution is to bring the Parliament to the people, instead of us having to go to the Parliament all the time.
I applaud what the committee is doing today. I never thought that I would sit in a room with MSPs, ministers and people like that. It is the people's Parliament, so we must start bringing the Parliament to the people by having much more of what has happened today. Thank you.
- The Convener:
I take it that you are asking me to find another £440 million for a building in Shettleston. We will bring that forward.
- Anne Souter:
I have been a community activist for years. We usually concern ourselves with local politics—community politics. Some things do not change. Frank McAveety said that the people who submit petitions are middle-class suits with degrees. That is evident in the room today. He was dead right to ask how we can encourage the community to participate. The community would be terrified to sit here today and look around the table. George McGuinness is shaking his head, but he is empowered. We should think of the people who are not empowered. One problem—it has always been an issue—is communication and jargon. The Scottish Parliament sends out some things that you need a Philadelphia lawyer to understand.
- Margaret Curran (Glasgow Baillieston) (Lab):
We have one over there.
- The Convener:
Patrick McGuire has never been to Philadelphia in his life. He got as far as Wishaw.
- Anne Souter:
How does the Parliament engage with the community? Enough money is coming into greater Easterhouse for projects. Perhaps we could consider how we encourage communities in greater Easterhouse and other areas to understand and know what the Public Petitions Committee is all about. I am not unfamiliar with some of the processes; I have been to hear debates about motions at the Scottish Parliament.
This meeting is the first step. Frank McAveety is dead right. Could activists—volunteers—who are here today assist MSPs by empowering communities to be aware of what the committee is doing? Thanks.
- Tina McGeever:
Anne Souter perhaps has a point. Scotland is a big place. We have someone here from the Highlands and Islands, and I have come down from Moray. Can the committee use people who have been involved in the petitions process, such as me and others who are here, who are willing to talk to local groups—perhaps with their MSP—about their experiences of the committee? That would make people aware of what is going on and make the process more accessible. We would just be ordinary folk talking about our experiences. Nicola Ryan talked about people who have no internet access. Going out and talking to groups in the community would deal with that.
- The Convener:
Does anyone else have comments or observations on this broad theme? I will call committee members after further comments.
- Ian Holleran:
I am from Shettleston community reference group. Surely the simplest way to inform people of the committee's existence is to put leaflets through doors. That can be done during election campaigns, so surely that is the simple solution.
- Robin Harper (Lothians) (Green):
A question lies behind all the comments. Access has been mentioned many times—probably more than any other word—in the past half hour. Of course, Parliament is not the only democratic body that performs services for the people; local councils do that, too. All our inboxes suggest that some dissatisfaction is often felt with how local government works, just as it is felt with the Government in Edinburgh.
What would people think of a two-part petitions process that included a petitioning process for local government? Instead of the only route being to approach your local councillor or MSP, if you felt deeply about something you could petition your local authority to change the way that it does things. I would welcome views on that.
The Parliament cannot do everything. People say that we should tell the public more about the Public Petitions Committee, but we should not forget the huge costs that would be involved in running a really comprehensive programme of telling people what we do and getting that information into every organisation and through everybody's letterbox. We could do it partly through MSP surgeries, but even they reach only the small number of people who go to the surgery. Sorry, I am ranting on. It would be useful to hear views about a petitioning process for local government.
- Patricia McKeekin:
I agree that a lot of money is spent on these things already, but electoral roll notices are sent out every year, as are council tax notices—sometimes umpteen are sent out to the same address. Why not put some information in with that? You would save on your postage bill for a start.
- Robin Harper:
Fantastic.
- The Convener:
We are happy to consider anything. The caveat is the legal framework and whether we can submit information alongside information from another statutory body. You are right that we could use existing means of communication more effectively. We are happy to receive any good ideas on that.
- Richard McShane:
We set up the Blairtumnock and Rogerfield tenants and residents association, which Margaret Curran knows about. Ordinary people in the community were fed up with what was happening and with the fact that nothing was being done about it. BARTARA has been very successful. Margaret Curran, the police and others have taken part in some of our meetings. We have come together strongly as a community. We did that with no finance and no help from anyone. Last year we held a meeting in Lochend school, where we had 150 kids sitting talking to politicians, the police and so on. I wrote to the Government to ask why it did not take that sort of thing to other schools, because the kids loved it. As Nicola Ryan said, we have to get young people in the community involved. We have got the pensioners and middle-aged people involved, but we want to get the young people involved.
People do not know about the Public Petitions Committee. As Frank McAveety knows, I was at the knife crime debate on Friday, which I thought was a great chance for people to get involved. I hope that it was not just a talking shop and that action will come out of it. We need you guys to communicate with us and to come to our meetings to tell us what is happening and what can happen in the future. Our association will pass that on to our community. About 1,500 people stay in my community, so the message will get passed out, but we need it to come from you.
- The Convener:
I appreciate that. Thanks.
- Jane Boyce:
I am such a novice that I do not even know what the process is for your work. I would not know where to start. Perhaps you could give a rundown of that for Joe Bloggs—people like me. I do not mean today, but when you send out information. You could let people know in as few words as possible exactly what your work entails.
- Ruby Hamilton:
I want to return to what Richard McShane was saying about getting communities together. We have the same problem in our area. We managed to get our community together. It was a bit like Huckleberry Finn: we were painting a wall and the weans and other people wanted to do it, and we were saying, "No. I'm enjoying it too much." Before we knew it, everybody was joining in. That needs to be encouraged at a local level and at a parliamentary level, but it does not happen.
Someone talked about boxes. If you do not fall into the wee category or the wee box, you are not wanted and you do not fit in. We need to be encouraged. We are a community, but we are all unique and we all have different ideas. It is still the same as when Frank McAveety and Margaret Curran worked here. They know what it is like. The officials are still trying to tell us—the people who are living the life—what we need. That does not work. You all know that it does not work.
- The Convener:
Christina McKelvie has kindly filled in this afternoon for another member.
- Christina McKelvie (Central Scotland) (SNP):
I am delighted to be here today to talk about the issue. I grew up in Easterhouse. I went to St Leonard's secondary school and I stay five minutes from here. I have been in the east end all my life.
For me, getting involved in local politics is usually the result of getting in among the issues in your local area. That is probably why I am where I am now. Taking that back a step, one of the issues is about engaging properly, as everyone has been saying today. That is a bit about self-motivation as well—if something happens in your local area, you get involved in it. It is about targeting people who do not engage and people who have totally disengaged from the process. That is something that I see day in, day out where I live.
Another big issue is the jargon. It is the problem of thinking that you do not have the right to speak to people. I quite like saying to people, "I grew up in Easterhouse." I get officials looking at me as if to say, "You grew up in Easterhouse?" I like saying it because I am proud of it. As I grew up, my family encouraged me to engage—that is the thing about encouragement. I have seen people out there who have not been engaged in processes and political initiatives, or even just campaigns for things that are morally right. Maybe their families are not encouraging them. It is down to everyone in this room to be ambassadors. I see faces around this room that I have known for years—people who have been involved in their community for years. You have done a brilliant job in pulling people together. That is something that we need to continue, but how do we get to the bottom of it? How do we engage people who do not want to engage or who do not have the confidence to engage?
We hit the nail on the head when we talked about schools. That is the place to go with some of the things that we have got to offer. The Scottish Parliament is fantastic for engaging with people. We probably have some of the best processes in the world for doing that. The committee is fantastic, too. Lots of Parliaments do not have a vehicle such as this for ordinary folk. The big issue is schools. I go to schools all the time. I represent Central Scotland, and I get to go to schools from Kilmarnock to Falkirk. I try to go to them all. If I am invited to a school, I try to go to it because the kids are amazing. They would blow your mind with some of the stuff they know. It is about keeping kids engaged, from primary school into secondary school, so that we do not lose them at 14 or 15, which tends to happen. It is about giving them something that they believe in. How do we do that as a Parliament, as a committee and as parliamentarians? How do you do it as community activists? How do we give people something to believe in? It is a tough one. I do not know how I got to where I am. It could have been because of what I believed in, but it was probably down to some of you folk sitting in this room.
- Anne Souter:
Gie them what they want.
- Christina McKelvie:
Absolutely. I agree with everything that has been said by witnesses today. It is about listening to what people want. When I sat on a community council, it used to annoy me when council officials came along and told us, "Oh, you'll want this for your community and you'll want that for your community." We would say, "No, we don't—this is what we need for our community." It is about being strong and keeping up the fight.
- The Convener:
Is there anything else on the broad issue, because I want to move on? There are two or three questions that we have to ask wherever we go in Scotland, and we need to try to get to those because they are part of what was in the initial petition that triggered this off.
- John Wilson (Central Scotland) (SNP):
The issues that have been raised are important ones for the committee to take on board. As Christina McKelvie indicated, the Public Petitions Committee is trying to engage with communities at the Scottish Parliament level. A number of local authorities and other agencies have visited the committee and said that they want to set up their own public petitions committees because they see the value in the work that has been done at the Scottish Parliament level. Local authorities throughout Scotland are thinking about setting up their own public petitions committees. It is not just at the Scottish Parliament level that that can work.
I want to ask those who are here today who have submitted petitions in the past what they think about the information technology route for submitting petitions. There are several ways to submit a petition, and we are looking at other aspects of that. It is not just a case of getting people to sign a petition in black and white, sticking it in an envelope, sending it to the clerks and hoping that it goes to the committee. It can be done online over the internet. We are trying to find out whether that method of engaging with the committee works. Could it be better? Earlier, the convener talked about how we engage with young people and we talked about using the internet more. The convener mentioned getting a blog on Facebook and, for some of the younger people in the audience, on Bebo as well. How do we engage with people? Are the internet and other information technologies one of the ways that we can do that?
I have taken on board the point that people in the audience have made today that not everyone has access to the internet.
- The Convener:
Does anyone want to respond to that?
- Michelle Stewart:
We started off our petition with an e-petition. We did not go out on to the streets and ask for signatures. We thought, "If folk want to sign it, it's there and they can sign it." However, we had so many people in our community coming up to us and saying that they wanted to sign the petition but could not do so because they had no access to the internet that we made petitions up and put them in all the local shops. In the end, we had 400 signatures online, which was really good, but we got more than 1,200 signatures from people in the community who did not have access to the e-petition. That shows that access to the internet is important, but going out into the community is much more important. The internet is faceless.
- The Convener:
By having the petition on the internet and getting people logging in from all over Scotland, did you get to share the experiences of other individuals who might have been facing similar difficulties?
- Michelle Stewart:
We had people from America and Canada signing the petition, but local people signed it too. It is on an issue for Scotland, so it is important that both petitions work alongside each other. I do not think that the e-petition should be shut after you start taking other signatures; both ways have to be available so that we get the diversity and people are able to sign for what they believe in.
- The Convener:
Are there any other observations?
- Ruby Hamilton:
I have recently started using the internet, but I have a problem with accessing some of the documents because they are in a format that I do not have, and I do not have £100 to go out and buy Microsoft Office. That is the kind of problem that is stopping me getting the information that I require, and I suppose that there are more people like me out there.
- Marion Patterson:
I think that we are missing a whole generation with the internet. The likes of my mum, who is in her 70s, would not use a computer, so you are missing a whole generation by sticking to that alone. You need both.
- The Convener:
At this point, I should stress that people can use whatever format they want to petition the Parliament. Obviously, we have adopted an e-petition structure as well because, for some campaigns or petitioners, it might be more appropriate.
I like authenticity in these things and I like to see the signatures, but it is not an either/or question. The petitions system is accessible in whatever format or fashion. Even petitions that are made to the committee by letter are accepted under our criteria. Sometimes there is a very small number of signatures to support an issue. By contrast, a petition on class sizes from one of the teacher unions had 80,000 signatures. That petition had no greater validity than the one that was submitted with fewer than 10 signatures. We try to look at petitions on their merits and on the issues, knowing that everyone has the chance to put a petition in front of the committee.
One difficulty is that, given the tightness of our committee time under the current structure of the parliamentary timetable, we cannot invite everyone to come and talk in the way that the C diff petitioners will today. We can have a maximum of two or three verbal contributions at a meeting—the rest have to be in written form.
I stress that we do not exclude anyone, whether it is an older citizen or a young person who thinks only of using the internet. That is how my teenage son communicates and consumes virtually everything, including music. My record collection is, sadly, now meaningless to my teenage son—I have to learn to live with that fact. His remarkable comment to me was that if I passed away, he would get my collection on to eBay as quickly as possible—at least it is reassuring that he would sell me internationally. We must stress that we need to use both formats.
- John Wilson:
Ruby Hamilton's point about the way in which documents go on the Parliament website is interesting. We all assume that everyone uses Microsoft and that they have access to Adobe Acrobat to enable them to open up those documents. It might be a challenge for the Parliament, but we can take the matter back to the IT team in the Parliament and say, "Look, we need to look at ways in which people can get those documents." If we are encouraging people to use the internet, we must ensure that the documents can be opened and read on the internet. There is no point in posting them if people cannot read them. Ruby Hamilton's contribution was useful. The Parliament must be aware of that issue if we want to use the internet as a form of communication.
The convener is right that it is about looking at the process as a whole and at how the Public Petitions Committee and the Parliament more generally engage with the public. The committee is trying to find out what the issues are, particularly on how we deal with petitions, but I hope that the Parliament more generally can take some lessons from what we are doing today.
- The Convener:
Are there any other comments on the topic? There is another theme that we need to address, so we can perhaps move on to that. If the discussion triggers another thought on a different theme altogether, I am happy to take that.
Jamie McGrigor has indicated at the last minute that he would like to comment on the matter we have been discussing.
- Jamie McGrigor:
I have a question for the audience. When a petitioner submits a petition, what responsibility should there be on the petitioner to build a strong case for it?
- Ruby Hamilton:
I do not think that that is down to us. If people are taking the time and the trouble to come to the Scottish Parliament or any other petitions committee, it means that they have reached the end of their tether and they feel strongly about an issue. If the matter was something that could be dealt with locally, we would not need you, would we?
- The Convener:
You are going too far, now; I knew that it was not going to last, Ruby.
- Ruby Hamilton:
When we bring a petition to the committee, it means that every other avenue has been blocked—you will be getting one from me next week.
- Nicola Ryan:
As petitions go through the process, the committee should recognise the person or the group's own merits and basically deal with them on an individual basis. Some groups may need more input than others, because some will have more experience of the process than others. Given that petitions deal with local community issues, it should be recognised that every group's level will be different and that they will go through the process at a different pace. The correct amount of help and support should be given to each petitioner to facilitate what they want to do.
- The Convener:
That is an important message, because people need appropriate help at appropriate points in a petition's journey. They have to go through all the procedures to lodge the petition. Two members have already raised the key point that people could feel intimidated by the structures. How can we allay that concern and maximise the merit of a petition?
- Robin Harper:
It is worth noting how our processes assist that. If the committee thinks that there is merit in a petition but needs to find out more about the matter, it will write to people to seek further evidence and not take a decision until it has that further evidence. Over the past two years, we have approached many petitions in that way; it is part of the process that the committee uses to come to its decisions. We never place all the responsibility on the petitioner to provide all the arguments. As long as we are persuaded that a petition is important, we will participate in finding what further evidence we need.
- Marion Patterson:
Is it not the responsibility of councillors to support the local community when it raises an issue with you?
- The Convener:
Robin Harper was trying to explain the Parliament's petitions process. There are meant to be other mechanisms at local authority level, not only in Glasgow City Council but in all councils in Scotland. To be fair, one or two councils are exploring the idea of having their own petitions processes because a substantial minority of petitions that come to the Parliament are on issues that would best be dealt with by local government.
We want to respect local authorities' legitimate, statutory role as directly elected bodies, but I think that people will still wish to raise issues in the Scottish Parliament that they would have liked to have resolved at council level. We will see what happens with the committee's report, but I do not believe that parliamentarians should be silent on those issues because some of them could be of national relevance or significance. That is a personal view, not necessarily the committee's view. We might arrive at a different understanding when we explore the nuances of that issue.
Local authorities are directly elected bodies and should have consultation and accountability built into their structures. Having been a local authority member, I know that, although authorities say that that is what they do, people on the ground tell them that it is not always their experience. There is a constant inconsistency on that. We need to keep working at it.
Before we get on to the petitions that are before us, John Wilson will ask a critical question about the structure of the petitions process. We are asking it everywhere that we go in Scotland.
- John Wilson:
My question is not only crucial to the structure of the petitions process but has implications for the Scottish Parliament. The Parliament works under devolved powers, with certain powers being reserved to Westminster. The Public Petitions Committee is presented with petitions from individuals or groups on issues that the Scottish Parliament is not empowered to take any action on. They can be United Kingdom-wide issues, such as benefits, or international issues, such as the conflict in Palestine and Israel. There is usually quite an illuminating debate about whether the committee should consider such petitions. Do you consider it legitimate for the committee to discuss issues that are outwith the Scottish Parliament's devolved remit?
- George McGuinness:
It is important to discuss such issues, because surely the committee can influence the national Government. It is important that the Scottish Parliament does not just say, "That's no oor fault. We can't dae anything aboot it." I am sure that, as parliamentarians, you can influence the members in Westminster. It is important that all petitions that are brought to the committee be dealt with one way or another.
- Patrick Milne Home (Biological Recording in Scotland):
I do not agree that the Scottish Parliament should debate matters that are outwith its remit.
- George Darroch:
For me, it is a case of cutting out the middle man. Why can we not persuade the national Government that it should have a public petitions committee so that we can go directly to Westminster, rather than have to go through one parliamentary splinter group, or whatever, to get to another one?
- The Convener:
The issue is challenging. John Wilson and I have a tennis match on the issue, because we represent different political parties. Fundamentally, the language of the Scotland Act 1998 makes lots of things admissible for discussion, but there is a world of difference between what is admissible for discussion and the powers of parliamentarians in the Scottish Parliament, because under the act certain matters are reserved. We can have that debate in a party-political or ideological bun fight any time we want—I am not exactly a wallflower when it comes to political debate.
In essence, we need to navigate through that. We need to tell folk that we do not have power over some issues. People might think that we should or should not have that power, but the reality is about how we deal with petitions. I come at it from the angle of being the custodian of the Public Petitions Committee. I need to consider how I ensure that people feel that they are listened to or that their issue has been amplified in the Scottish Parliament, even if their petition calls on the Scottish Government to raise an issue with the UK Government. For example, we have had that phraseology in relation to the difficult issues to do with what has happened in Palestine. Several petitions will come up on that, and it is difficult to navigate on that.
I am just asking you to try to help us a wee bit. Maybe the wisdom of Solomon will need to pop up eventually on the issue, but we at least need to get a sense from members of the public of where you instinctively think that we need to be. Having said that, I am conscious of time, so I would like to make the next contribution the final one in this part of the meeting before we move into formal session.
- Jacek Swilas:
I am probably the only foreigner here.
- The Convener:
There are a few people from Edinburgh as well, so do not worry about it. I could not resist that.
- Jacek Swilas:
In the past, I was deeply involved in political work in my country and I am involved with political work here. I am a member of a political party. The Scottish Parliament's invention of a Public Petitions Committee is very good. I see it against the background of what happens in other countries, especially mine—I am from Poland. The committee is a very fine short cut between the public and Parliament. Somebody talked about the costs, but they are the costs of learning and teaching democracy. In my opinion, the documents and leaflets that you send out are useful. Scotland is probably at the beginning of its way to a new future. Those are the costs of learning about a new future. However, it is probably necessary to get more information about the committee to recognised communities, such as the Polish, Pakistani and Lithuanian communities. Scotland is starting to become an international nation. It is necessary to finish with a kind of clan thinking and to think in the category of a nation. Information about the committee and the possibilities must be sent to different parts of this complicated community.
- The Convener:
Thanks for that positive contribution. Before we move on to the formal consideration of petitions, I have several important points to make. This is one of the best turnouts that we have had at such a meeting. In terms of responses and direct contributions, it has been the best to date, which is a compliment to the people who are in the room. I was always confident that that would be the case. Margaret Curran said that folk from the greater Easterhouse area can be fairly voluble, which has been confirmed. Having taught in the area, I can testify to that.
- Nicol Stephen:
I now realise that Margaret Curran is one of the shy ones.
- Margaret Curran:
Yes—I am one of the quiet ones.
- The Convener:
The meeting has been great. If people have ideas emanating from it, they should pass them to our committee clerk. Your comments will get to the Parliament whether you do that by e-mail or letter. Just direct them to the Scottish Parliament Public Petitions Committee and we will certainly take your ideas as part of the information from the session.
Richard McShane, who spoke earlier, and I attended the knife crime debate in the Parliament on Friday. The reason why we had that debate, which was the first time ever that there has been a national debate in the chamber that did not involve only politicians, was because of a petition. You will have read the stories from the petitioner, John Muir, who lost his son as a result of a knife crime incident. The benefit of the debate was to pull together all the issues related to knife crime, the dangers of which are a reality in all parts of Scotland. Substantial figures were involved to try to make progress. At the end of the debate, the petitioner feels that the issue is moving on and he feels quite powerful.
We are commissioning research on how to reach the groups that are difficult to reach, but the best research that I know is to find out about your authentic experience. It is essential that you give us any comments that you have, so that we can deliberate as parliamentarians on your behalf and, I hope, arrive at a better way for the committee to work in future. I am the third convener of the Public Petitions Committee—I am merely a custodian. We want to ensure that, year on year, we improve the system, based on the commitments that were made when the Scottish Parliament was created in 1999. All those who have the privilege of serving in it want to ensure that it lives up to the four founding principles, which include openness and ensuring accountability. It is easy for me to say that—those words are used all the time by people in public office—but we want to demonstrate those principles in our work.
I thank everybody who participated. You are welcome to stay for as long as you want. The formal meeting will take the next couple of hours, and I realise that people may have family commitments or other arrangements. [Interruption.] We have a squeaky door, so I ask people to exit with caution and with a modicum of quiet, as that would help us in our deliberations. I will suspend the meeting for a minute or two so that people who want to leave now because of other commitments can do so.
Meeting suspended.
On resuming—