Official Report 340KB pdf
Good afternoon, everyone, and welcome to the meeting.
Yes.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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?
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.
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?
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.
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.
I remind you that you can petition the Parliament on any issue.
I have been involved with Tina McGeever's petition.
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.
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.
Are you teaching kids in high school about the political side of the Scottish Parliament and how they can access it?
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 was asking whether you actually teach young people, before they become adults and voters, about the process for accessing Parliament.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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?
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?
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 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 take it that you are asking me to find another £440 million for a building in Shettleston. We will bring that forward.
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.
We have one over there.
Patrick McGuire has never been to Philadelphia in his life. He got as far as Wishaw.
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.
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.
Does anyone else have comments or observations on this broad theme? I will call committee members after further comments.
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.
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.
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.
Fantastic.
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.
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.
I appreciate that. Thanks.
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.
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.
Christina McKelvie has kindly filled in this afternoon for another member.
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.
Gie them what they want.
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.
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.
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.
Does anyone want to respond to that?
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.
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?
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.
Are there any other observations?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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?
You are going too far, now; I knew that it was not going to last, Ruby.
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.
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.
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?
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.
Is it not the responsibility of councillors to support the local community when it raises an issue with you?
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.
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?
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.
I do not agree that the Scottish Parliament should debate matters that are outwith its remit.
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 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.
I am probably the only foreigner here.
There are a few people from Edinburgh as well, so do not worry about it. I could not resist that.
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.
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.
I now realise that Margaret Curran is one of the shy ones.
Yes—I am one of the quiet ones.
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.
Meeting suspended.
On resuming—