Berlin Visit
The last item on our agenda is on the very successful visit to Berlin that was undertaken by me, the deputy convener and Rosie Kane. We were accompanied by our assistant clerk, Richard Hough, whom we thank for his hard work in organising the programme and ensuring that the visit was so successful. I also thank the members and officials of the German Bundestag for the hospitality that they extended to us.
Before I ask members for comments or questions, members may wish to say something about the proposal to have an annual chamber debate on the work of the committee and about the importance of continuing to share ideas and good practice. John Scott and Rosie Kane, who were on the visit, may comment first.
I echo your thanks for Richard Hough's hard work, which made for a good trip, and I thank the German Bundestag for its hospitality.
The worthwhile report reflects accurately all that we did. In discussion over dinner one evening, we took the view that it might be a good idea to instigate a debate in the chamber such as the convener described. We thought that another innovative thing that the committee could do would be to notice and be aware of good practice elsewhere. That is what happens in Germany, where a report is laid before Parliament and is debated thereafter. It struck me that that would increase the accountability of the committee to Parliament and that it might be a model that other parliamentary committees would wish to follow. There could be an annual 40-minute debate that would be opened by the convener and closed by the deputy convener, with questions in between. It would put the committee in front, in terms of innovation, if we were to instigate that.
For a change, I am not going to be awkward. I, too, thank Richard Hough. I think that looking after us was, at times, like trying to herd kittens. It was very well done and it was a worthwhile trip on which we learned a lot. The members and officials in Germany were interested in, and complimentary about, what we do and how we do it. They were keen to learn from us, which made me feel very proud of the work that we do and how we do it.
We discussed having an annual debate in the chamber, which we decided was a great idea. Although the committee serves an extremely useful purpose, I am not sure that everyone is aware of its work. It is not seen as a joke, but some people out there—excepting those who have enjoyed using the facility—do not take it all that seriously. An annual debate would be an excellent way of dealing with that.
The report is very accurate about our visit, which was a very good experience. I felt very proud of the committee, the clerks and the work that we carry out.
Earlier in the week, I read newspaper stories about how the Bundestag is developing its own international teledemocracy centre. I was encouraged to see in the report that, although the Bundestag has experienced a few minor difficulties with
"server congestion, causing slow server response times during peak periods, and a high volume of spam and offensive comments",
it is still enthusiastic about e-petitioning. Scotland is still in the vanguard on this matter, and it is great to see other people interacting and working on the basis on which we have been working for a while.
I was also interested to see that, as in Scotland, petitions on health and community care and law and home affairs matters appear most regularly on the German petitions committee's agenda. That, of course, will come as no surprise to MSPs—it reflects the content of our mailbags.
I do not subscribe to the view that a junket is a trip that I am not going on.
I do.
I am confident that you all worked hard in Berlin.
An annual debate on the committee's work and publication of an annual report are excellent ideas. However, the findings of recent academic research into the committee's work raise many broad issues, have many implications and provide an excellent catalyst for a wider parliamentary debate.
I am not saying that a successor committee should not focus its debate on its own annual report, but this independent third-party research into the effectiveness of our work brings a whole new dimension to the question of what such a debate might cover. In any case, I am very keen for that debate to happen sooner rather than later.
Charlie Gordon's idea for a debate on the independent third-party research is excellent. Of course, I was unable to go on the visit, because I was at the Communities Committee pushing for a third-party right of appeal in the Planning etc (Scotland) Bill.
That is the weakest link I have ever heard.
Having read the report, I am sure that the trip was worthwhile.
I was struck by the importance that is placed on the petitions system in the Bundestag. Indeed, it is the only committee that gives a leather-bound edition of its annual report to the President of the Parliament.
However, the committee operates in a somewhat different way to ours. For a start, it acts as the ombudsman for the whole of Germany and, each year, considers in private about 20,000 petitions. Basically, the staff of 80 clerks do all the work on the petitions, and committee members simply rubber-stamp the process to conclude consideration. The only aspect that is considered public is the e-petitions system, which is absolutely identical to ours. The only difference is that the language is German.
On the proposal for an annual debate, I have to say that I always feel that, when the Conveners Group considers the timetabling of committee debates, we have never really taken part in that side of things. In eight years, we have held one debate, which was on a very serious issue that was raised with us. The committee should not have to sit and wait for such issues to arise before we get time in Parliament to discuss what we do. The other committees have the opportunity to have their inquiries debated in plenary meetings. It is absolutely right that all members should be able to comment on committee inquiries. I do not see why the same opportunity should not be afforded to the Public Petitions Committee.
There is always a lot of interest in what goes on in the committee but, unless members physically come to our meetings, they get no opportunity to take part in the debates. In our legacy paper, we should say that our successor committee should host parliamentary debates on its work to allow other members of Parliament to comment on it. If a slot is still available in the timetable, we could put in a bid for such a debate in this session.
I endorse that utterly. I point out that we use Scottish technology from Napier University and that the Bundestag now uses it, too. That is a real tribute to the technology that Napier University developed on our behalf.
I want to develop the corporate governance issues that the convener talked about. There are no ombudsmen in Germany, and the Westminster system has many ombudsmen but no petitions committee. Those two completely different but long-established systems have completely different ways of dealing with public complaints. In Scotland, our system is somewhere in between—it is a mixture of both. In the broader context of the corporate governance of the Parliament, it may be worth our while to consider certain issues in the very long term, such as whether the work of the Public Petitions Committee should be expanded to deal with complaints with which ombudsmen currently deal. That is just a question; I am not saying what the answer is. There is more than one way to skin a cat. We were privileged to see a different way in Germany, from which we could learn lessons.
I have a tiny point to make about the convener's comments. He said that we should show what the committee has done, but the issue is also about openness and accountability, which is an important part of what we do. For that reason, I hope that the committee will be allowed to have an annual debate in Parliament on its annual report.
On that point, I close the meeting. I thank everyone for attending.
Meeting closed at 12:52.