Petitions Process Inquiry
Good morning, everyone, and welcome to the Scottish Parliament Public Petitions Committee, which is sitting not in a committee room in Edinburgh but in Fraserburgh academy. In particular, we welcome students from Fraserburgh academy and from elsewhere across the region, who have come along to see the process of the committee.
I am the MSP for the Glasgow Shettleston constituency and the convener of the Public Petitions Committee. We have a full complement of committee members; the fact that they have all found their way here is an endorsement of the quality of the petitions before us and a recognition that we wish to engage as effectively as possible with the people of Scotland. I invite committee members to introduce themselves, so that people are aware of the areas that they represent, either as constituency members or as regional members.
Good morning, everybody. I am the Lib Dem member for Ross, Skye and Inverness West. I am delighted to be here.
Good morning, everyone. I am equally delighted to be here. I am the Labour and Co-operative MSP for Glasgow Anniesland.
I, too, am delighted to be here. I am one of the Labour MSPs for North East Scotland.
I am another committee member who is happy to be in Fraserburgh. I am a Conservative MSP for North East Scotland. I live in Aberdeen, so the Broch is quite handy for me—it took me just under an hour to get here.
Good morning. I am a North East regional MSP and, despite my London accent, a member of the SNP. I, too, live in Aberdeen, so it was a gentle drive up the road this morning. I am delighted to be back in Fraserburgh.
Good morning, everybody. I am an SNP MSP for the city of Glasgow, and I am the Parliament's newest MSP. I became a member seven weeks ago, after one of our members passed away.
Good morning. I am an SNP list MSP for Central Scotland. I am glad to be here.
Good morning. I am a Green party MSP for Edinburgh and the Lothians. I have a connection with the north-east in that I went to Elgin academy for a year.
To my immediate left are some of the staff of the Parliament: the clerks to the committee and official report staff. The reporters will record what is said by parliamentarians, as well as contributions that are made by individuals during the question-and-answer session and the wider discussion—our discussion will all be recorded for the record.
Because of our commitment to one of our key petitions, about engagement, we also have the opportunity today to have a video link-up. I hope that, through the school's technology, we will be able to link up with individuals in Edinburgh who wish to give evidence on parts of the committee's discussions. I hope that, through the video link, we will hear voices from the screen on our right. Unfortunately, those of you behind the screen will not see the individuals concerned, but we can assure you that people will appear there to make a genuine contribution.
I record our appreciation for Fraserburgh academy. Before we were members of the Scottish Parliament, a number of us had experience of working in schools. It is always a delight for us to visit schools, but I know that it can cause inconvenience for the school. I therefore thank the school, particularly the rector and the staff, including the key members of staff other than the headteacher—the janitorial staff—who ensured that everything was in place for our visit, which I hope will be of benefit.
One reason why we chose Fraserburgh academy as a location for the meeting was that we were aware that it has a particular commitment to ensuring that its young people develop as full citizens and, as part of that, are clearly aware of the parliamentary and political process. I know that they are already a wee bit nervous and I do not want to make them more so, but young students from secondary 2 and students from other year groups will make a contribution shortly. I am sure that they will be a credit to the school and to their families, and I hope that they will gain something positive from the experience.
A number of committee members are from the north-east. Several MSPs who are not members of the committee are here today for specific items on the agenda. I will introduce them for the agenda item concerned and we will hear from them then. For administrative and procedural reasons, I indicate that all electronic devices should be switched off because they can interfere with the recording system.
The first item on the agenda is the continuation of our grandly titled inquiry into the public petitions process. In essence, it arose from a petition for which one of the main petitioners was the Young Scot organisation, which petitioned the Parliament about how the Public Petitions Committee could engage more effectively with the public, and with young people in particular. It will be helpful to hear views from the young people here on how we can engage with them and deal more effectively with their interests.
Unlike our normal meetings, everybody in the room can participate in this open session. The inquiry is about how we can make the public petitions process more effective. We lead the way among many Parliaments in the world in how we engage with our citizens. We know how the public can view politicians—we are not immune to that perception—but we are keen to ensure that our Parliament is accountable more effectively to the people in Scotland than perhaps people have felt other institutions have been to date.
The Public Petitions Committee was based, in part, on the simple, democratic Scottish idea that people can raise an issue by petitioning their Parliament. A petition can be submitted by an individual or a collection of individuals, or it can have thousands of signatures. We get a bit of criticism in the media sometimes for the petitions that we consider, but we cannot refuse a petition. No matter how interesting, unusual or meaningful a petition is or is not, it must be discussed by our Public Petitions Committee. That does not mean that we always agree with a petition, or that we think that all petitions should be thoroughly discussed by other committees or in the Parliament chamber. However, the reality of the democratic process that we engage in is that the Public Petitions Committee must discuss each petition.
Something that is now regarded as conventionally sensible or acceptable might have started out as an idea that was regarded as a wee bit eccentric or unusual. Times change and so does how people view things. We therefore have a sense that the Public Petitions Committee is the voice of Scotland: diverse, as it should be, but sometimes as wacky as it can be—that is the reality of life. We all have a variety of opinions, some of which we are happy to express and others that we are a wee bit shy about expressing, because we wonder whether people will agree with them. Perhaps the benefit of the petitions process is that it allows some of that to be aired in our Parliament.
We have arranged a series of opportunities for members of the public to tell us how they think the public petitions process could be more effective. We have held a number of public sessions on this matter in other parts of Scotland, and people have not been shy about coming forward with their views. I invite those who are here today to give us their views or to ask us questions.
I will kick off with a few general questions that members of the audience can respond to. What do you think that the petitions process is for? How well does the Parliament publicise the existence of the petitions process? How can we do better?
If people want to speak, it would be helpful if they would stand up—if they are able and confident enough to do so—so that we can see them across the room. It would also be helpful if they would say who they are and whether they are here as an individual or are representing an organisation.
The two members of the Parliament staff with microphones are not about to start singing; they will pass one of the microphones to anyone who wishes to speak.
I am the prospective parliamentary candidate for the Labour Party for Banff and Buchan. On behalf of the constituency party, I would like to say what a joy it is to have the committee here in Fraserburgh in particular and in the north-east of Scotland in general.
I am sure that committee members are aware of the report about the Public Petitions Committee that Dr Christopher Carman, then of the University of Glasgow, produced in 2006, around the time that the committee received its 1,000th petition. The report said that the fundamental problem that the committee faces, in terms of its aim to be inclusive, concerns the social background of the people who petition the committee, in that they are substantially male, middle class and well educated. Is that still the case?
As admirable as the intent of the committee is, you must be truly democratic in reaching out to people in the poorer areas—for example, areas in which there is substantial council housing. As I understand it, that is not the case at the moment. If you are to be truly democratic, do you not have to address that? To what extent have you addressed that issue since that report was published in 2006?
We will take a few questions and then either I or other members will respond.
Kevin Hutchens (Aberdeen Trades Union Council):
I represent the Aberdeen Trades Union Council. Again, welcome to the north-east. I hope that the Public Petitions Committee will come here again. I see this visit as an example of democracy and freedom of expression at work; it is very much in the spirit of the Scottish Parliament, which is about bringing democracy and control of services closer to the people of Scotland.
I have been involved with several petitions. One was about making United Nations day a public holiday; one was about human rights education; and the most recent was against cuts in public and voluntary sector funding, which was submitted on behalf of Aberdeen Trades Union Council.
My organisation has made a written submission to the inquiry. However, in view of the committee's visit to the area, I will reinforce some of our points.
I am pleased with the level of support from the committee's staff. They were helpful in the course of communication by e-mail and letter, and they were very polite and courteous on the phone. I am particularly pleased regarding liaison and regarding people with physical disabilities coming to the Public Petitions Committee. Two of the people who came along to the committee were wheelchair users. I am pleased at the hearing that the committee gave to the views of the Aberdeen Trades Union Council and of our two witnesses from Future Choices and Glencraft. I am also pleased with the way in which the meeting was recorded, in writing and on video.
However, I will focus on something that I am not so pleased about—the length of time that organisations have taken to respond to the committee's request for information in relation to questions that were asked. Our petition is still under active consideration. In many ways, I am pleased about that. However, as of today, none of the requested further information has been passed on. Some of the organisations that were asked for information on the first occasion made no formal response; I refer to the Equality and Human Rights Commission, in particular.
In practice, that meant that, while key bodies such as the Scottish Government took more than two months to reply to the first call for information, Aberdeen Trades Union Council—a voluntary body—was left with only weeks in which to respond to what was said. That, incidentally, did not take too long, as we felt that the Government had avoided many questions that we and the committee had raised. In the light of that, we propose a time limit of, say, 21 days in which respondents must reply and a requirement on all organisations to reply as of duty.
My final point is perhaps not within the remit of today's inquiry. Aberdeen Trades Union Council suggests that, given the way in which events have moved on, a roving inquiry into cuts in public and voluntary sector funding should be initiated, starting here, in the north-east of Scotland, in Aberdeen.
Thank you.
Walter Baxter (BrainHelp):
I am the chairman of a charity called BrainHelp. I am here to thank the committee for the way in which our petition was handled. I was delighted with the outcome and the response. I felt that the whole procedure was very straightforward. I am pleased to say that our petition was successful. I am prepared to answer any questions that the committee may have regarding the petitions procedure or any of the difficulties that I came up against.
Thanks, Walter. Walter Baxter submitted a petition to the committee several months back—perhaps even longer ago than that—and the result has been much more progress on the issue than had happened before.
We do not close a petition unless we are satisfied that we have had a chance to get full responses to the issues that we have raised. We acknowledge that there are variations—I speak euphemistically—in the response of public organisations and other agencies to the issues that we raise. I have authored a number of letters to some fairly large public bodies that have not respected the process of the Public Petitions Committee as much as they should have done. We have had to respond robustly to them, and that will continue. We will not shirk from taking on any vested interest if it stands in the way of a legitimate interrogation of a petition.
We welcome Kevin Hutchens's views on how we can ensure that the process is more effective. As part of our overall debate, we will discuss issues such as time limits for responses to requests. We get as frustrated as the petitioners probably have been about not getting the information that we hoped we would have received or about organisations not responding to us. It is a constant battle, but that is the nature of life. We constantly have to battle with different organisations and institutions to get them to respect the decision-making process. People think that policy committees are the only parliamentary committees that matter, but we think that the Public Petitions Committee is one of the fundamental tenets of the Parliament and we want it to be respected.
I am sure that Bill Butler will want to comment on some of the points that have been raised.
In response to the first gentleman who spoke—it was Dr Reynolds, I think—I point out that some school students will petition the committee today. That kind of breaks the cycle of white middle-aged men, like Dr Reynolds and me, bumping our gums. I believe that it is important that we try to come out of the Parliament, as we have done today, to engage people more directly in a much more inclusive process.
We cannot drag people screaming and kicking before the Public Petitions Committee, but we do not need to do so. We already have an encouraging level of engagement—we want it to be higher—and some important issues have been dealt with through the petitions process. For instance, thanks to the late Mike Gray's petition on cetuximab, the Scottish Government has begun to change policy on the drugs that health boards dispense to those who suffer from terminal illnesses such as cancer, which the late Mike Gray suffered from. That is an important development.
We are a bit better than Westminster, where I believe that petitions are chucked into a bag somewhere and left to be forgotten about. The Scottish Parliament is leading the way, but we should not be complacent. That is why we want to hear people's views today on what could be done to improve the process.
Convener, I will leave it at that because I think that it is time for the public to have more say.
I will let Nanette Milne and others respond, then I will take more questions.
In response to Dr Reynolds, I should say that our main reason for coming to Fraserburgh is that we are concerned about the very issues that he raised. For example, when I highlighted the public petitions process at a fairly sizeable meeting of ethnic minority people that I attended in Aberdeen a few months back, I discovered that about 90 per cent of my audience had no idea what a petition was. We need to overcome that basic communication problem if we are to reach many of those who never engage with our committee. I hope that we might hear some positive suggestions on how we could improve things in that respect. We are aware of the weaknesses, but we have not yet found the solutions.
Convener, it occurs to me that, although we have no powers to compel organisations to give evidence to our committee, whenever we ask for a response we could perhaps add a polite note saying that failure to reply within a reasonable time will result in our inviting the organisation to appear before the committee.
On the issue of voluntary sector funding, we received a petition from the voluntary sector two weeks ago and our clerks are in discussions with other parliamentary committees on whether an independent committee inquiry on that issue is needed. Although I cannot guarantee that such an inquiry would necessarily start in Aberdeen in the way that Kevin Hutchens suggested, members will interrogate the issue either through our committee or through another committee. In a sense, that demonstrates the point that we want to make, which is that we will not let go of an issue unless we are satisfied either that we have gone as far as we can with it or that others in the Parliament can deal with it.
On accessibility, I will not kid anyone on about the reality of making parliamentary processes meaningful for our most disadvantaged communities. As the University of Glasgow research demonstrated, the reality so far is that the educated and well informed are much more able to access and use the petitions process than those who live in areas such as my constituency in the east end of Glasgow. However, one thing that we have done is to take the Public Petitions Committee to Easterhouse, Berwickshire and Fraserburgh—we will have one or two other opportunities, too—so that we can at least try to identify the issues more effectively.
Those who can dominate the news agenda or decision-making machinery will always be reflected in the stats, although we can nudge the process a wee bit more in favour of the ordinary citizen. More important, the champions will be other ordinary citizens such as the gentleman at the back who said that his experience was very positive so that he believes that we can take an issue forward. That is despite the fact that sometimes we have to say that we totally disagree with somebody. It is our right as politicians to make our judgment on the issues, as long as we do that within a framework in which people engage as effectively as possible.
I invite others who have not yet had a chance to speak to contribute.
I am the wife of the late Mike Gray, whom Bill Butler mentioned. I lodged a petition with the Public Petitions Committee for my husband, who was terminally ill at the time, about the equity of drugs provision throughout Scotland, particularly cetuximab. We found the process of the Public Petitions Committee really heartening. It was very accessible from the moment that we submitted our petition and we got great support throughout the process. I am really glad to say that the petition is still current and I hope that things are moving on. The most important thing is actually getting to that point where people find out how to access the Public Petitions Committee.
I say to the first speaker today, Dr Reynolds, that I am not a man and I was born in Clydebank—so things may have been slightly askew but they are moving on. However, it is important that the Parliament and the Public Petitions Committee get out to where the people are and it is great that there are a lot of young people here today. I urge the committee to use anything available to it on the internet, such as Facebook or Bebo, to engage young people in the petitions process. The most important thing is that anyone can use the process. Even if someone does not think that they can use the process, they should just take that step over because people at the other end are there to help them. How we get that message across to other people who might think that they have something to say is the most important thing. You are certainly allowed to say things to the Public Petitions Committee. I urge people, especially young people, to think about the best way to get a petition across.
Thanks, Tina. I always love the look on teenagers' faces when we say that we want to use Bebo and Facebook—it says, "That's our personal space; you stay out of it, you old codgers!" However, Tina McGeever raised a good point when she spoke about how young people can engage in the process to access the Parliament. Perhaps we shall hear some young voices on that point. Do any young people—and not-so-young people in a moment—want to comment? If not now, will you think about it and say something later about how we can be more effective for you? You will be the voting generation in the near future and it is important that we hear your perspectives as well.
I see that a gentleman at the back wants to speak.
Good morning from a not-so-young person. I welcome the Public Petitions Committee to the north-east; it is good to see you. You have saved me paying for bed and breakfast in Edinburgh, which is also beneficial. I represent the school bus safety group, which has a petition in front of the committee. The Milne and Oldham families are here today too.
I do not recognise whatsoever some of the things that have been said so far. Our petition experience has been so positive it is unbelievable—the current petition is my second on school bus safety. I say to anybody here that lodging a petition is simplicity itself; it is easy to do.
The other great thing is that appearing before the Public Petitions Committee is refreshing because the committee is non-political and the MSPs take a great interest in the petition that is before them. The process is obviously well thought through and it is easy to get a petition into Parliament; it can be done through the internet or in hard copy. The clerks—I see Fergus Cochrane there with his usual smile—make things so easy for petitioners and take away any problems. It is an extremely positive experience.
I will not say too much because our petition has still to come before the committee and we are not sure of the outcome, although we are hopeful. However, I encourage organisations or youngsters who want to put a petition before the Parliament to do so because it is a great democratic thing to do. On behalf of our group, I thank the committee for hearing our petition—we will take it from there.
As I said before a previous committee meeting, flattery gets you everywhere, so thanks very much. Can I hear some other perspectives on the Public Petitions Committee? The young gentleman at the back wants to speak.
John Noble (Fraserburgh Academy):
Thanks for calling me young.
I was being ironic.
I am another middle-aged white male.
I am the headteacher of Fraserburgh academy. First, I give a warm welcome to the Public Petitions Committee and all the members of the public. I am particularly pleased that Mr Beaty and the Milne and Oldham families are here for the Public Petitions Committee's visit because we are very much behind the campaign for improved pupil safety, not just on buses but generally. We have been working hard to improve that in Fraserburgh.
One of the first points to be raised was on how the Public Petitions Committee can reach more people in Scotland. Another reason why we are delighted to have the committee here is that we see it as an important part of democracy in action in Scotland. The fact that the committee is willing to come out to schools in other parts of the country will widen people's access to the process. However, we in education also have an important part to play. We have young people here who are about to present before the committee, which we are pleased about, but we have others here being aware of the process. That awareness needs to be spread throughout our schools.
To return to the first gentleman's point, we can widen access by spreading awareness of the process throughout Scottish education, particularly as part of the new curriculum framework that is being developed in Scottish schools, so that we use our heritage and environment to enhance education in school. A link with the Public Petitions Committee is a strong way in which to do that.
Thank you very much. Are there any other general observations? We have a few other questions that we want to get through, so we will move on. If other issues come up during this quick question-and-answer session, feel free to come in when you want.
I direct this question, at least to begin with, to the young people in the audience. How can we let people know about the public petitions system and steer them through it? How can we improve people's knowledge of the process? How did you find out about the Public Petitions Committee? Are you here only because your teachers told you to be, or had you heard about the committee before?
I am a former schoolteacher who was used to pupils in a class sitting there thinking, "I hope he's no gonnae point me oot." Unfortunately, old habits die hard.
The one direct question is this: how can we help people get to know the public petitions system? For instance, would posters round schools be helpful?
A youngster wants to speak. You have broken the ice, young man—well done.
Christopher Hair (Kemnay Academy):
In my opinion, very little is done in schools to highlight to young pupils the work of parliamentary committees or the Parliament as a whole. We are here today only because we do modern studies at school which, as the committee will know, involves awareness of parliamentary committees and other aspects of the Parliament. However, very little is done with younger year groups or even senior year groups to highlight what parliamentary committees or the Government actually do. It might be good for you to put in some form of—I do not know; you know more than I do about what you should be doing.
I would love to create that illusion, but that is the critical issue that we have to deal with. We are only custodians of the Public Petitions Committee, and others—maybe even some of the young people in this room—will be in charge of the Parliament and the committee in the future. We need to think about how we can build a democratic system that, in spite of the cynicism that can exist, people think is worth having, compared with the alternatives.
Over the next few years, the Scottish Parliament and the United Kingdom Parliament will be seriously discussing lowering the age of voting to 16—indeed, some pilot work has been done on that in relation to health board elections. You are saying, as a modern studies student, that there is not enough information out there for youngsters. How do we build people's citizenship knowledge so that they can make informed decisions about the future direction of their country?
It might be good if, for example, the committee could do a presentation day in schools, perhaps accompanied by a local MSP. You could use the event to describe to pupils what you do and how we could bring a petition to Parliament about an issue that we are concerned about. That does not seem to happen at the moment.
I sometimes think that it might be useful if there were an event that we might call democracy day, when we would encourage youngsters to think about ideas for petitions. If we put investment into the event, young people and other citizens would be made to feel that they can make a contribution.
Do members of the committee have any views on the youngster's contribution?
The Parliament has an MSPs in schools scheme. It operates mainly with primary schools, but I think that any school can ask an MSP to come into the school. The scheme responds to demand rather than being a big, self-advertising campaign. Perhaps it should be advertised more.
An important point for those in the audience who are taxpayers is that there is a cost element to what we are talking about. The education process is critically important for our Parliament, but the scale of our education provision is such that it cannot meet the demand. If we wanted to expand it, we would have to make a choice to devote resources to it. However, how things get reported in the media can prevent members from wanting to make such choices—such an allocation of resources could easily be misrepresented as a waste of money. If we are to spend money in that way, we need to have a sense that citizens are saying that, in the long run, that sort of investment in our democratic process is right. The investment is not designed to benefit any elected member; it is designed to give the citizens of the country a much more direct knowledge of what happens.
The cheapest form of government is dictatorship, but no one would want that—not even the convener. We need to spread the democratic process, and that is not a cheap thing to do. We have just passed a bill that includes provisions for pilot schemes for direct elections to health boards. I had some involvement with that policy in previous years. Those pilots will cost some cash, but I think that it will be cash well spent.
I have a question for the first student who was brave enough to speak, although he did not give his name and therefore spoke anonymously. Why do you and your colleagues not think about petitioning the committee for greater outreach education? That would be an ideal petition, as you have suggested the idea already. As Robin Harper said, the Parliament has an education outreach scheme but, as the convener said, extending it would have resource implications. It is up to you to say, "There is a cost to democracy, but it is a cost that is worth incurring." That is just a suggestion.
The Hansard Society is carrying out a review of the education outreach programme—I have a meeting with one of its representatives on Wednesday to discuss my thoughts on the matter. Perhaps the committee could raise the issue with the Hansard Society to see whether there is any way of involving more schools. I have been to a number of schools in this area—indeed, I have been to one of the primary schools in Fraserburgh, so Fraserburgh has not been left out—but there is obviously an issue that must be addressed.
If I am right, the people who have spoken who have already been involved with the petitions process feel that it is reasonably accessible and that the language that is used is not too complex. We will continue to work at that, although I do not think that there is any big problem in that regard.
What do the young people think about the language that parliamentarians use? Does it just switch youngsters off?
The light on my microphone is not working—could someone switch this oldster on?
Do the young people feel that, even though the Public Petitions Committee has come to your town, the meeting's format is still too formal? Would you prefer a round-table sort of affair?
Louise Perry (Fraserburgh Academy):
I am Louise and I am a sixth-year pupil in Fraserburgh academy. I am quite pleased to be here today. My modern studies teacher, Mr Morrison, is over there at the front—that is him with the glasses.
You are getting in his good books there, well done.
I have been doing modern studies for two years now, and I am quite enjoying it. I am used to the way that you guys are speaking because Mr Morrison tends to use quite a lot of posh words, as it were, when he is teaching, so that we will write our essays in a more formal fashion.
I am pleased to have been given this opportunity to sit in on the committee. I knew quite a lot about the Scottish Parliament, but I did not know so much about what the Public Petitions Committee does. It is quite interesting to be able to listen to what you guys have to say.
Have you guys ever thought about holding a meeting just for young people? Quite a lot of the people who are here today represent organisations or are older members of the public, but if you had a meeting that was just for the youngsters, that might enable them to engage directly with you and tell you what they think about the committee and discuss issues that they might want to raise in a petition.
We have had engagement with members of the Scottish Youth Parliament, but that is a helpful formal suggestion.
I am sure that you and the other students have plenty of ideas. I know that, over the next eight or nine weeks, you will be in an incredibly emotional period of your time in school—my son is going through that period at the moment—but it might be helpful if you could submit some ideas to us about ways in which we could open up the petitions process. One of the most compelling pieces of evidence that we have heard is that we are not engaging with young people as we should be. That is true of many swathes of our society, but the committee should be cognisant of that matter and should try and deal with it.
Some of those ideas might be useful. I will let you back in, but Anne McLaughlin is desperate to raise the issue of engagement with young people. I would be joking if I said that I knew the world my son is in when he is on MSN—I probably should not need to know half the things. MSN is his world; that is the nature of teenagers today. Teenagers will want things such as MSN to be part of the process when they come to their working life or go to university or college, so we need to be more aware of that.
I reiterate what the convener said: it is really important for us to hear from young people. Is this the right setting for you? Is the language that we use the kind of language that you relate to, or are we making you fall asleep?
Before I was elected, I worked for another MSP. One day last year, I was discussing a project that we were trying to do in a school with a 17-year-old colleague—I am just a wee bit older than him—and I suggested that we should ask pupils to fill in a form to find out how useful the project was. I was about to begin making up the questions when he said, "No, don't do that. We hate filling in forms." It had been so long since I was at school that I had forgotten all of that. However, when I thought back, I remembered that I hated doing that kind of stuff—there is enough paperwork at school without also having to fill in forms.
As I am sure you all know, MSPs are completely out of touch with people of your age group. Please do not assume that things are obvious to us. You should not be afraid to send us ideas that are obvious to you, because they may not be obvious to us. I return to the example that I have just given. I suggested that the pupils should fill in a form because, throughout my working life, I always ended up having to fill in a form. We get used to doing it because we know that we have to do it and we forget how much we hated it when we were younger. That is just one example of how MSPs can forget things because we are that bit older. As I said, if something is obvious to you, please do not feel that it is too obvious to put to us. These things are important. We will listen to all your suggestions.
Earlier, I explained to my colleagues about Facebook. I will ask for a show of hands. How many of you are on Facebook? Three. How many are on Bebo? Lots of you—I thought so. I think that I am pretty cool because I am on Facebook but, from the small number of you who use it, I see now that that is obviously not the case. I am aware that lots of younger people prefer using Bebo or a messenger service to Facebook.
If you were on Bebo and you got messages telling you about the Public Petitions Committee, would that be an intrusion? I do not know much about Bebo, but let us say that a group on Bebo wants to double the number of school holidays and sends you a message asking you to put that to the committee. Would you find that an intrusion, or is it a good way to get across the message? I know that not all of you use Bebo, but what are your thoughts on that? I am looking at you because I like your hair—and you put your hand up. Someone else has their hand up—I like your hair, too.
You can fight over the hairstyles.
Hannah Gray (Fraserburgh Academy):
This is really embarrassing.
Don't worry. On you go.
I am Hannah. Dinna put stuff on Bebo. We get enough of it a'weys else. Bebo is oor thing. Just dinna dae it.
Okay.
I probably agree with you on that, Hannah. However, one of the big achievements of Barack Obama's successful election campaign was his effective use of networking sites to communicate his message. It might be okay for politicians to do that when they have a popular message to put out, but it becomes more difficult to do when the message is not a popular one. There is no doubt that Barack Obama's use of networking sites was a tipping point in mobilising the support of many people.
Politicians are in the terrible business of trying to win people's hearts and minds. I apologise for that, but that is our purpose in life. It gives us an ambivalent relationship with the public we serve. People say, "All you're looking for is my vote." Our reply is, "That's why I'm standing for public office, in case you've not noticed." The question is how we engage better with people. My boy gives me the same sort of horrified look that you gave us, Hannah, at the suggestion that my colleague made. We are trying to be hip and trendy, but we are probably failing abysmally. I do the dad dancing at family functions now, and you can imagine how bad that is. The question is how we can be more effective for your age group. You are young citizens making your way in the world, and we need to get the sense that you want to engage.
You really need to stop being so formal. You come in here and put down these tablecloths and the little bottles of water—it is scary.
But if I walked in here wi a shell suit and a pair of trainers, you would say—
That would be far better.
But you would think, "He's obviously fae the east end of Glasgow, and he's dressin doon for ma benefit." How can we win?
Aye, I ken, but then I feel I could speak to you. I come in here, and there are TV crews a'weys. I dinna ken fit you're daein wi them—if you're daein it just for the fun of filming it, or if you're using it for something—but I have to admit it is scary.
Do you think that we would be better having a much more informal workshop with young people, which would allow youngsters to express themselves on their own terms, rather than on our terms?
Aye. You could come in and walk aboot the school wi jeans and a T-shirt or something and speak to folk. I admit that this is scary, and I had nae idea fit the first two folk were speakin aboot, with aa their fancy language. You need to speak to folk, instead of talking to them.
Fair enough. I will shut up, then, if that is what you really mean. Thanks, Hannah, and don't worry about the points that you are making—you sound just like my daughter.
Is there general agreement among Bebo users, for example, that you would not want to hear about the committee using Bebo?
I think your hair is lovely, too.
It is.
Matthew Roger (Fraserburgh Academy):
I am Matthew Roger, from Fraserburgh academy. I am quite a confident person, but this meeting is very formal, and it is quite nerve-wracking standing up here. I disagree with the girl who was speaking about Bebo. You are not going to please everybody if you put the Public Petitions Committee on Bebo and make it accessible to Bebo users, but you will definitely attract new young people who will support the committee and who will learn how to use the petitions system.
Good.
I want to go back to the previous thought. This might be a challenge to the teachers—if the headteacher is listening, that is good. It occurs to me as we are speaking about this that I have no idea where youngsters get their knowledge from. Could the school—for example, the sixth-form modern studies teacher—take on a little task? Could somebody give us some thoughts on where schoolchildren—teenagers—get their knowledge from? It is an open-ended question. What counts as a source of knowledge?
Is the modern studies teacher here? Could I impose on you, Mr Morrison? You obviously have a key responsibility for the subject in the school curriculum. How do you feel we can achieve that sharing of knowledge?
More important, the two youngsters who have just spoken to us are trying to tell us about the structures that we have created. I should explain that the committee has to go through some necessary processes, because of how it is put together. I am conscious of how formal that is, and I would rather that we were not so formal. However, we need to cope with the process because of our statutory requirements. The question is how we can allow the voices of young people to be heard, rather than just those of the convener and other committee members.
Alan Morrison (Fraserburgh Academy):
Thank you very much for putting me on the spot here.
The kids gave me money to do it earlier on.
I had been hoping that this was just going to be a forum for the pupils of Fraserburgh academy and the surrounding area.
To respond to something that Louise Perry said, I say that I do not really use posh language, but I do use language that is acceptable for the Scottish Qualifications Authority.
Which is very useful, I find.
The term to use is "proactive". The fact that you are here today in Fraserburgh academy, up in the north-east, away from committee room 1 in the Holyrood Parliament, says a lot. We have public petitioners here, and you are giving young people, including pupils of the academy, the opportunity to put forward petitions, which they have thought quite a bit about. You are giving young people the opportunity to interact with you in the democratic process. Accessibility is the key thing—it is one of the four key watchwords of the Scottish Parliament, as many of our pupils should be aware. It is about making yourselves more accessible, perhaps in a more informal manner, as has been suggested.
I think that we will give Mr Morrison pass marks. That was great—thank you.
I will move on to other questions, so that we can sweep up some other responses. The next question is about scrutinising the role of the committee.
This question is on the issue of which petitions the committee should consider. When the Scottish Parliament was established in 1999, the UK Government gave it devolved powers and reserved many powers to itself. If you stay for the rest of today's proceedings, you will hear one of the Scottish Government ministers explain that some of the powers to take forward certain petitions in the way that the petitioner would like do not lie with the Scottish Government.
The committee wants to explore whether it is relevant or legitimate for us to continue to deal with petitions on issues—such as international issues—on which it is not within the devolved powers of the Scottish Parliament or the Scottish Government to make decisions. The issue will arise with the pupils' petition on the G20 conference. It could be argued, as it has been by some of the committee members in the past, that the Public Petitions Committee should not consider that petition because it is on a reserved issue. We would like to hear your views on whether it is legitimate for us to consider any petition that comes before us.
Are there any strong views on that from members of the public? I see that Mr Beaty wants to speak again.
I am sorry to speak once again.
I am just noting it in relation to possible time constraints later in the meeting.
It is good that that question was asked because, with regard to our petitions on school bus safety, many transport matters are not devolved but lie with Westminster. When we appear before the Public Petitions Committee, we rely on it to raise those issues with Westminster, as there is no way in which we can do so. It is very important that petitions on subjects that are not devolved are brought before the committee, as there is no other way for such issues—especially the ones that our petitions raise—to be discussed. It is great. The committee should consider the petitions that it needs to consider—that will do us fine.
Are there any other strong views on whether we should deal with petitions that sometimes stray into reserved areas? Do people feel that because we are a Public Petitions Committee for the Scottish Parliament, we should at least have a chance to discuss an issue—whatever it is—in the Scottish Parliament, even though the powers to deal with it are not necessarily within our remit?
In considering a specific petition, the committee at least draws the issue to the public's attention, whether or not the Scottish Parliament has governance over that area. The people down at Whitehall might then realise the reaction that the issue is causing up here in Scotland. Depending on how much publicity is given to a specific subject, I am sure that it would help a lot if you considered a petition on any issue that concerns the people of Scotland.
Perhaps Robin Harper will touch on another aspect that links in with that, to do with where the best process lies. Should it lie with the Scottish Parliament, or could other models be encouraged or developed?
This has occurred to me while I have been going round schools with the MSPs in schools programme. The presentations that I hear are often to do with issues that are very much under the control of local councils rather than under the direct control of the Parliament. I am speaking about simple things such as the maintenance of a public park, the placing of bus stops or local road safety plans. It has often occurred to me that it would be good for councillors to join the MSPs in schools programme. Because powers over such issues are devolved from the Scottish Parliament to the local authorities, it might be useful for the 32 local authorities to have their own petitions system. I wonder whether there will be a reaction to that idea now or whether the pupils might like to lodge a petition calling for a petitions committee in their local council.
I am conscious that we have other items to discuss and that the young students are nervous enough about those without keeping them waiting for far too long. I want to pull together the discussion on the Public Petitions Committee. We have had a good chance to explore some of the issues, but I issue an open invitation to everyone to chip in ideas, even after today's meeting. You can do that through our wonderful new Bebo networking site that we will develop over the next 24 hours. Whatever form or fashion you want to follow, I am sure that school staff will help you to follow the process through to the clerks.
We are open to any good suggestions that could make a difference to how we engage. I thank everybody for saying that getting out and about and being proactive is a good model for the committee and I hope that it has been of benefit. We are still conducting our inquiry on accessibility to the Public Petitions Committee so I hope that some of your suggestions will be included, even those from Hannah Gray, who had a good go at me. I am happy to take your comments on board, Hannah.