Joanna Tuffy (Labour)

That was on 31 March 1925. A debate ensued because the Seanad had not decided on the right to petition at that stage. The Dáil had ruled out the proposal and the Seanad had not taken a view on it. The petition was defeated but it referred the question of whether to take petitions in future to a sub-committee. I could not find out what happened after that. It appears the idea was not developed, although I cannot be sure about that. It does not appear to have been raised in the Seanad since then.

The type of right I have in mind is to allow members of the public have an initiating role whereby they can call for legislation. It would be based on a bottom-up approach and could come from an individual group or even a county council. This would be a way for Members to engage in dialogue with county councils. Obviously, were this approach to be adopted, they could participate in it.

A good example that could be considered is the manner in which the Scottish Parliament has introduced such a system. On its establishment some years ago, it decided to allow the right to petition. Mr. George Reid, who is presiding officer of the Scottish Parliament's Public Petitions Committee, has stated that:

Many of the discussions that took place and shaped the Parliament that we have now were difficult. When it came to discussing a petitioning system, however, we were united. We were determined that we should be open and inclusive and that we should give the public access to their Parliament in a very Scots way.

Members should do the same in an Irish way. He also stated that the public petitions committee, which has been extremely successful, grew out of such discussions.

In a sense, what they did was similar to what was done in Northern Ireland in terms of police reform. They examined all models and came up with a good one themselves. They have had many firsts, such as being the first Parliament to implement an e-petitioning system. Subsequently, the German Bundestag examined it and has also adopted it. They have held rolling meetings throughout Scotland in which they tried to promote the petition system and have included marginalised groups because they wish to try to engage the different sectors of society.

I will provide some examples of how the Scottish system works. Basically, it operates along the lines of this motion. Individuals, community groups and organisations can make a request to the Scottish Parliament on a matter of wide public interest or concern, or to amend existing legislation. Such petitions are forwarded to the Public Petitions Committee, which processes them — its 1,000th petition was presented today. The committee goes through the petitions and can make a decision on them. It can decide to do nothing, by closing a matter and not considering it. Moreover, a petition must be appropriate. There are many guidelines in this regard and a particular form must be filled out. The committee can send the petition to a Minister for his or her consideration, it can have a debate in the Scottish Parliament or it can refer it to a parliamentary committee. Ultimately, in Scotland this can and has led to changes in legislation.

The petitions received by the committee are interesting. For example, its current list includes one from a primary school. The school substantiated its petition application with research conducted by its students. Essentially, the petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive to take greater action to protect the public, domestic and non-domestic birds as well as animals, from the dangers of broken glass; to promote the use of plastic bottles as an alternative to glass; and to introduce a refundable deposit scheme aimed at reducing the levels of broken glass in public places. The petition includes details such as children's experience of broken glass in playgrounds.

In the case of a primary school, the petition was drawn up on the students' behalf. However, some petitions pertain to legislation. One petition is from a man asking — Members will be interested in this and many will be opposed to it — to extend the prohibition of smoking to designated areas in the vicinity of non-smoking premises, such as doorways and pavement cafés.