Welcome to the ninth meeting in 2009 of the Scottish Parliament Public Petitions Committee. Due to other parliamentary committee commitments elsewhere in Scotland, Bill Butler and Nigel Don—both are attending a remote meeting of the Justice Committee—will be unable to attend this meeting, and have sent their apologies.
Between January and April this year, Ipsos MORI and Dr Carman undertook research to inform the wider inquiry into the Scottish Parliament's public petitions system. The research had a number of aims. First, we wanted to identify the sections of society that do not engage with the political process—in particular, with the petitions system. Secondly, we explored the reasons why underserved groups do not use engagement mechanisms. We also set out to identify ways in which the Public Petitions Committee can make the petitions system more relevant to underserved groups, and to identify the skills and tools that will be necessary to improve participation rates. The report that we have produced sets out the findings of that research and our recommendations for future action.
Thanks very much.
I have a few questions: I will start with what you said at the end about public information co-ordinators. In the run-up to the digital switchover, people were employed to hold public awareness meetings. Do you envisage your suggestion working on that sort of scale? Everybody had to know about the switchover to digital TV or they would not have been able to watch TV any more. Do you propose that sort of roadshow? How do you envisage it working?
We looked at what the National Assembly for Wales has done. It has set up within the regions public information co-ordinators whose job it is to co-ordinate public information efforts within the individual regions.
Chris Carman is right—generally, people do not know about the system. However, once they find out about the system they receive it very positively. In the qualitative research that we did, we told people about the petitions system only towards the end of the session. We had a wee handout that we showed them, which was short and concise. Generally, people were quite interested and were—as I mentioned in my opening statement—surprised by the fact that only one signature is required and that a response is guaranteed. People think that it is a good system; they just do not know about it. What we propose is an attempt to plug that gap.
The idea of people standing outside shops builds on an idea from the United States. In the US, before the most recent presidential election, voting booths were set up in shopping malls and there was an amazing response, with queues all the way down the malls. It turns out that if you go to where the people are, as opposed to expecting them to come to you, you will be able to engage them better.
Right. That is interesting.
Did you find similar views among ethnic minority groups? I attended an ethnic minority meeting in Aberdeen some months ago: for a start, the people there did not understand what a petition is. A huge amount of communication is necessary, both in language terms and in basic understanding. Did you pick up anything like that in your research?
We did not really encounter such difficulties. Members of ethnic minority communities were involved in our group discussions but—to be honest—their views seemed to be similar to those of everyone else.
There are probably low levels of information across the board and ethnic minority communities do not seem to be particularly disadvantaged in that respect. The Scottish Parliament has done a good job of ensuring that people can get information in almost any language they want. If people seek information, they can get it. As has been said, the problem is that people do not know that they can seek the information in the first place.
Did your remit extend to considering the contribution that education can make? I ask because modern studies, which I used to teach, was becoming increasingly popular in Scottish schools, but currently only around a third of Scottish secondary schools have a modern studies department, I think.
Our statistical findings show that there are links to social deprivation, of which education is, of course, one measure. Where there are high levels of social deprivation, there is lower awareness and less information. I think that the first video that the Scottish Parliament put on its website back in 1999 or 2000 was about kids up north petitioning it on banning smoking in public places, of all things. Education has certainly been a component of its work.
On the qualitative research, there was feedback from a young people's group. It is clear that their interest in protest and making their voices heard lies away from traditional petitions and more in forms of more direct action. They perceive forms of more direct action to be more effective ways of highlighting issues or of making their voices heard.
I was not suggesting that all modern studies departments should petition the Parliament: we would find it rather difficult to cope with that. On the other hand, petitions could be sent to local authorities—that was raised at a round-table discussion that we had—and people could be taught about the petitions system.
One component of the survey responses is that there is clearly confusion about the Scottish Parliament's petitions system versus the ancient right to petition. People know that they can petition, but they do not know where, how or to whom. We asked people in focus groups to whom they would submit a petition. Everything except the Scottish Parliament was mentioned in most of the groups. People would petition the local council, the police—
Yes. People did not really identify the Scottish Parliament as being the most natural location for sending petitions, even on issues that are clearly within its remit.
That is not reassuring. Did you get a chance to interrogate why people did not do so? Those of us who argued for devolution or whatever form of self-government in the United Kingdom—we have different political affiliations on that—were passionately committed to the idea that the creation of a Scottish Parliament would open up accountability and that people would feel the value of that. It worries me that, on the 10th anniversary of the creation of the Parliament, people do not have a sense of engagement.
We took several steps during the group discussions. One was spontaneous: if someone had an issue to raise, how would they do it? The idea of petitions is somewhere in people's minds, but it is not up there with going on a protest or writing to their MP. I was going to say "or to their MSP", but people said "MP" more. If we focus on petitions, the first question is who receives them. Most people, regardless of the issue, think that it will be their council or Westminster. That is the problem identified.
As members are fully aware, when you seek to engage the unengaged or underserved groups, most of the obvious mechanisms that you can think of merely further engage the already engaged—it is easy to reach out to the people who are already aware of the system. The trick is to figure out how to deal with the people who do not even know that the system exists. It might become a bit more of a problem to distinguish the Scottish Parliament system from all the others, particularly as local councils begin to adopt more formal petitioning systems. There is also the matter of distinguishing the Scottish Parliament system from the 10 Downing Street system—which is not really even a petitions system, to my mind.
I was wondering about your recommendations for the local government petitioning system. If there was a full petitions system across all local authorities, would that make it easier for us and for people to distinguish where they should go? Apart from anything else, the clerks from each system would, I hope, refer people to the appropriate level.
The short answer to that is yes, especially if we accept that the key issue is awareness raising. I am sure that if more authorities have similar petitions systems and do their own awareness work, perhaps co-ordinated with what you are doing, that will be extremely helpful—particularly given that, according to our research, most people will think of their council as the obvious recipient of the majority of petitions.
There are issues with that, however. I might submit a petition to a local authority, but it could get sent off to the Scottish Parliament although I might not have wanted it to; I might want to petition the local authority. On the other hand, I might petition the Scottish Parliament and the petition could be sent down, as it were, to a local authority, although I did not want it to go to the local authority but to the Scottish Parliament. Members can see that you would have to be very careful how you develop the system by which petitions are transferred or referred from one level to another.
I see the point from the petitioner's point of view. From the Public Petitions Committee's point of view, however, it is good to have petitions that we can actually do something about, and that fall within our remit.
We did not do that specifically. My previous research showed that a disproportionate number of men petition the Public Petitions Committee, as you will be aware. The question is why, so we tried to figure that out in the research. We had hoped that the survey would reveal gender differences with regard to awareness and so on, but we could not find any. It does not seem to be an awareness issue, although it perhaps runs a bit deeper than what we could uncover with our basic survey. If locations at which to put out stalls and provide information were picked strategically, certain audiences could be targeted.
Do you have any information from other Parliaments and legislatures? Are there any tips from them regarding awareness, which we might pick up, or do they have the same sort of problems as we have?
The problem is that the Scottish Parliament has been the benchmark. The great thing about the Scottish Parliament is that, although it was not the first legislature to have a petitions system, it has been far more open with its system, particularly in respect of its combining the e-petitions system with the petitions system as a whole. As members are well aware, other petitions committees are looking to the e-petitions system in particular.
The report rings alarm bells for us in relation to awareness of the Parliament, never mind the petitions system. Did you find that there was greater awareness of the number 10 petitions system than of the Scottish Parliament system? If so, why was that the case? I know that when petitions go on the number 10 website, some social networking groups tell contacts to sign up to them. We could examine how people who submit petitions to the committee put out information on those petitions, bearing in mind Dr Carman's caveat that 30 to 40 per cent of the population do not have access to the internet at home.
I will deal with the first question. We found that, generally, there was greater awareness of the number 10 petitions system. We did not measure that statistically in the survey, but several of the people who took part in the group discussions that we held had used the number 10 petitions system and none had used the Scottish Parliament system. Why is awareness of the number 10 petitions system greater? It comes back to the issue that we discussed earlier. You may have answered the question, at least partly, when describing the tools that are used to get people to sign up to petitions. The issue is also wrapped up in the public's lack of awareness of what the Scottish Parliament does. People take the view that either the council or Westminster is the obvious recipient of a petition, regardless of its subject.
As I said, I have problems with the number 10 system being called a petitions system, because it is very different from what the committee does. It would be helpful if the Scottish petitions system was distinguished from the number 10 system. If I submit a petition to number 10, I may get a nice e-mail thanking me, but that is about it. The important distinction needs to be made that the Scottish system is far more formal and there is much more process to it.
The report refers to the use of public information co-ordinators by the Welsh Assembly. When the Parliament was established, we established a number of partner libraries throughout Scotland that were supposed to be the conduits for information to the general public about the work and role of the Parliament. Did you examine the role of public libraries in distributing information and making it available to the wider public?
Not directly. The issue did not arise spontaneously in any of our discussions. From the research that we have carried out, I cannot say that there is much evidence of partner libraries being used to positive effect.
When the issue was raised in focus groups, people were sceptical about whether having information in public libraries would do much.
Earlier, Chris Carman made the point that, instead of expecting people to come to you, you need to go to them.
We are searching for more effective ways to engage. We all know that we are in a fairly turbulent political environment, given how the public feel about elected politicians here, in the House of Commons and in local authorities. There will always be a gulf, and people will perceive that nobody is listening. Part of our purpose is to try to bridge that gap constructively through the Public Petitions Committee. One of the committee's strengths is that it does not matter who someone is, what the issue is, or even how many other people agree with them; they can petition the Scottish Parliament. It is a democratic Scottish tradition that people can petition their Parliament directly to address issues. I am concerned that we would lose that relationship if we blurred the edges and introduced referring petitions on. People should come to the Parliament directly to ask us to consider issues that they care about. If, after that consideration, we find that other people can resolve the issue, that is fine, but the port of call should be here.
The obvious response is that if we had public information officers or co-ordinators who gave out information, your job of engaging with your constituents when they had complaints would become clear—that is what I would want if I were in your shoes. As you know, the problem with your job is that it is about 12 jobs wrapped up into one. If you and your office staff are concerned simply with trying to increase public knowledge of various procedures and ways of getting involved, it becomes harder for you to help people with their concerns. If we had public information officers or co-ordinators with that role, they might tell people that their first port of call should be one of their MSPs, but they could also set out other options.
All of our recommendations have cost implications, although some are greater than others. However, that arises from our analysis of the will of the people to whom we spoke and from what the research tells us about how people want to receive information. Given that there is a problem with awareness, not just of the Public Petitions Committee but of the Parliament and its powers more generally—that is pretty unarguable—people are telling us that television is the best way to address the problem. I recognise that that does not answer your question, but it is a way of saying, "Okay, it costs money, but there is clear evidence to suggest that this is what people"—
I do not think that you can answer the question, although it was not constructed deliberately so that you could not. There is ambivalence among people. In my experience of public office, folk will say, "We want this," and when you provide it, they say, "We really don't want that at all, we want you." People are uncertain about what they want from those who serve them. There is no doubt that they want accountability and transparency, which is right and proper, but they also want accuracy. In my experience of public life—and I am sure that other members feel the same—people sometimes want to know who to blame. They want to say, "I came to you to try to solve my problem. You didn't, so I'll make a judgment on that," or, "You solved it so I'll make a positive judgment." We all live in that world and it is perfectly legitimate.
People at Westminster experimented with consulting young people by text. They got a fair few responses, when they could decipher what the various responses meant.
I wonder which letters came up.
I am beginning to show my age. The problem with text consultation is that it is like Twitter, whereby you are limited to using 140 characters. You cannot say much in 140 characters and you cannot really say much in a text message. There are limitations when you start to look at such mechanisms.
The message from the research is that the best way of reaching a critical mass of people is through television, which, going back to your question about cost implications, has the largest cost implication of any recommendation. Nonetheless, it is people's preferred communication method.
I know that the public information co-ordinators proposal could have major cost implications.
I do not know to what extent a guarantee can be offered, but, as I said earlier, the issue is one of awareness rather than participation—it is not about whether people like the system or not. That is particularly true among underserved groups. We know from the research that the majority of people receive information about the petitions system—how simple it is, for example—very positively and are much more inclined to use the system as a result.
It is difficult to give a guarantee. When we said to people in the focus groups, "We've told you that there's a Scottish Parliament petitions system. How do you think it works?", they said, "You have to have a lot of signatures to show support, and you probably have to go to your MSP, which will be a big ordeal." You have probably heard all those things before. However, as soon as we told them, "Actually, it takes only one signature. You should try other avenues too, but it is a fairly straightforward process," people said, "Oh, that sounds much better."
Are there any final comments or questions?
My question is on a different issue. We have, as you know, held several external meetings as part of the inquiry. We think, as a committee, that they worked reasonably well. Do you agree? What information did you get back from the participants?
We carried out in-depth interviews with five people who attended the external meeting in Dumbarton, and the feedback was generally quite positive. One issue that arose was that people were not really aware of how the meeting worked before they came along. It was not clear to them what was going on, and they were a bit surprised when they got there. In general, they felt that the Public Petitions Committee was a great way of bringing democracy to the people, but that more could be done to promote it clearly so that people know what the committee actually does.
So it comes back to the basic point about raising awareness.
Yes. It was recommended that the committee should hold meetings to inform people about how the committee works before the actual committee meeting takes place. Some people were a bit confused that they were hearing evidence on other petitions.
I was struck by what you said about the danger being that we engage more of the people who are already engaged with the process. That is fine—we want to engage more people—but today's discussion about the public information co-ordinators has been interesting.
We have finished our questioning, so I invite the witnesses to make any final comments.
Trying to figure out how to engage the unengaged and raise awareness of the petitions system is definitely a large job. I have had conversations with people who have been involved with cross-party groups. I spoke to an active member of a cross-party group who talked about mental health issues. He asked what I was working on and I said the Public Petitions Committee. He replied, "Oh, what's that?" That fellow was engaged with the Parliament on a regular basis through the cross-party group, but he had never heard of this committee. All sorts of people do not know about the petitions system, so you have a large job in raising awareness of it.
I thank you all for your contributions. As you know, our inquiry is on-going. I hope that we will end up with clear conclusions. You have given us a lot of significant information, which has concentrated our minds. I hope that we use that as part of our overall consideration for our report. Thank you for your time and the work that you have undertaken.