New Petitions

I thank the convener and the committee for hearing our petition. I will not read out the petition; I will just outline why we submitted it and what we hope to achieve.Our petition centres on effective consultation of voters by local authorities. Effective consultation is an important part of modern politics. In this time of supposed voter apathy and a remote policy process, effective consultation provides a good link between policy makers and voters and between service providers and service users. It is the means by which good, relevant and appropriate decisions are made and by which bad decisions are avoided.As major service providers, local authorities need to consult effectively. By that we mean seeking information or advice from service users and from those who are affected by their policies with a view to providing services that best meet the needs of the communities that they serve. That is achieved by getting out there and finding out people's wants and needs through listening to their input. That should be done in a structured manner that homes in on the most relevant issues. Local authorities should find out the extent to which service users' expectations can be met, given the limited resources that are at their disposal, and go out and provide the service. Local authorities should also reflect on how the consultation process went and act on any areas for improvement.That is a model of open government that fits with the principles of the Scottish Parliament, which we think should be applied in local politics as well. The open government approach, combined with effective consultation, did not happen in Edinburgh with regard to the policy of the containerisation of waste. Our concern is that some local authorities are unwilling or incapable of ensuring the effectiveness of their consultation procedures in the absence of guidelines from the Scottish Parliament. We ask members to consider that with a view to ensuring that the experience that we had is not repeated elsewhere in Scotland. The containerisation of waste is a fairly mundane, universal and straightforward issue; it is not complex. We all produce waste and need it to be taken away and some of us want some of it to be recycled. Those are the only issues involved. As such, the issue is a useful benchmark for assessing whether local authorities are indeed committed to effective and proper consultation and accountability. If they cannot get this right, heaven help us when they try to deal with more complex issues.We can list a number of issues that we raised with the council that the council did not listen to and we could outline flaws in the consultation procedures. However, perhaps it is sufficient to say that the council concluded from its consultation process that the main issue was whether to containerise or not although, if it had listened to us, it would have learned that the issue was how best to containerise, taking into account the needs of the elderly, the infirm, the frail and the disabled, parking considerations, recycling considerations, road traffic considerations, other planning permission considerations and so on. We outlined many such aspects, but the council did not listen. We are concerned that none of that registered.Without a willing listening ear, a consultation process is rendered useless, pointless and redundant. It seems that some local authorities require guidelines from the Scottish Executive to ensure that their consultation procedures are effective.

Far from it.

This is not a personal issue. Our community called a public meeting at short notice at which there was standing room only. The discussion was about not only where to site the containers but what kind of container would best fit with the area. A lot of elderly, frail and disabled people find it difficult to use the massive containers that eventually arrived. We thought that there were smaller and better alternatives that would also have the effect of encouraging recycling, so we thought that there was room for discussion. We were trying to make constructive points, but we were not listened to.

That depends on your definition of effective consultation. A public meeting was called by the Liberal Democrat councillor for the Dean ward but the council executive decided that it did not want to send anyone to the meeting. After some pressure, it sent someone, but the issues that were raised were never taken forward. At the meeting, we were promised that there would be street-by-street consultation, but that never took place. There was no effective consultation as the council did not actually listen to what we were saying. The points that were raised at the meeting were all fairly relevant and the opinions that were expressed were all constructive. People wanted to play a positive part in the rolling out of a straightforward policy. However, our suspicion is that the raw materials had already been bought by that stage and that there was no room for the council to change its plans if it had listened to us.

There was one visit from a council official in May, but I would argue that that was not consultation at all. The visit was not about asking local people's advice or gaining local knowledge, but was basically to say, "We are going to come round in about five weeks' time and put a big black bin at the spot on the road where an X has been written." That is not consultation. There was contact, but not consultation.

We were not seeking to reverse the decision; we were seeking to have the containerisation done in the best possible way for the community. If the council had come to that meeting, listened to us and taken on board what was coming from the people, who just turned up—there was no great amount of organisation—I would have considered that to be a good start. I have said it already today, but I hoped that consultation would be carried out in a structured manner. The consultation process—if you can call it that—was haphazard at best. It was not planned or structured in the way that consultations should be. Consultations should go from A to B to C to D and come up with a conclusion.

We could have gone with green wheelie bins and so on, but that is not important. I would have considered the procedure to have been a success if the council had taken on board what was said, had acknowledged that its processes were flawed and that the process was not properly structured and had been haphazard, and had said that it did not want to repeat that in future consultations. That was the main issue.

I cannot speak for everyone but—

Absolutely. With respect, you are going down a blind alley. People turned up to the meeting to talk about bins and containers, but the point is that they had to turn up because they had not been properly consulted. If they had been, we would have needed no meeting; we would have just had a proper consultation. Most people who signed the petition would accept that decisions have to be made, and we live with them. However, the council says that it consulted widely and for a longer period of time than it ever had before. We did not see any evidence of that and that is what got us quite irate. We were quite happy to accept the decision and we support containerisation but we cannot accept what the council says about it having done it as a result of a lengthy consultation process, because that is wrong.

That is right.

Delegations from Dean, Marchmont, Stockbridge and one other ward—I have forgotten the name—were invited to attend the city chambers for a meeting. That was encouraging and went above and beyond my expectations.When we got there—and I am sure that the minutes will bear this out—I made all the constructive points that I have listed, and some others. Unfortunately, the council's conclusion was that the issue was about choosing whether to containerise or not. It had not listened to us, which is why I would say that that was not consultation either; it was just a sop and we came away thinking, "What was the point of that?"We would rather not have had the meeting if the intention was to make us think that the council was to take our ideas on board, for it then to bin them. The meeting was haphazard; it was not planned. We turned up that day for no apparent reason. There was never going to be any change by that stage. That was not good consultation and it does not give me confidence in future consultation procedures by that body.I am not asking the committee to have a go at the City of Edinburgh Council. I just hope to ensure that the Parliament can put something in place that will ensure that such haphazard consultation is not repeated by local authorities throughout Scotland. I hope that councils have more effective, structured and planned consultation procedures.

It is not bad, but it would have been good if the City of Edinburgh Council had organised the meeting. Instead, the local Liberal Democrat councillor organised it off his own bat. After the council sent out a letter saying that residents would get the bins in five weeks' time, people started to get in touch with the councillor to tell him that they had not heard anything about such a decision. Then he—not the council—organised the meeting. Indeed, the council did not even seek to use the meeting as a useful sounding board for public opinion. It was entirely up to the local community. In the end, the council rather reluctantly sent someone along who did not really take our views on board and offered us things such as the street-by-street consultation, which never materialised. I do not find that impressive.

I do not have any such examples as far as politics and waste containerisation are concerned. However, I have expectations that I think are shared by the whole community. I consult people in my day-to-day work and have to do it a darn sight better than the council has managed to do.Today, we came up with a list of about 10 issues that will affect the community because of containerisation. The issues are not particularly complex and it would have been easy to find a process that homed in on the relevant matters. Once it was clear that we had all accepted containerisation as a policy per se, the question then should have been about how best to containerise waste instead of simply imposing a one-size-fits-all solution. The solution does not fit all because disabled people cannot reach the bins; frail people find them difficult to use; the bins take up parking space needlessly and so on. Those issues could easily have been overcome with a proper consultation process. We feel that we are on safe ground in making such a contention.

We could have had different types of bins that fitted the type of housing in our area. For example, we could easily have had the rolled-out green wheelie bins that they have in many other parts of the city and in the country. Those bins can be kept in the back green and do not take up parking space, apart from on collection days. On the other six days, they are not on the street or taking up parking space. Although we made those points at the hastily arranged public meeting and at the meeting in the council chambers, they were never really acknowledged or explored to any level.

After the public meeting, we expected a street-by-street consultation to be carried out. Indeed, we were given a date by which the papers would be sent out. I hasten to say that I do not think that any minutes were taken of the public meeting, so it might be difficult to corroborate that statement. While we waited for the consultation to begin, we got in touch with various council members and the council's environmental department through e-mails and letters—we have submitted that written evidence with the petition—and contacted the local MSP and councillors to try to take the matter forward. We should bear in mind that, by that stage, the time scale for introducing the bins and the particular type of bin that was to be introduced had been decided, which meant that our room for manoeuvre was quite restricted.We were given the chance to have the four delegations present at the city chambers. The points were made about concerns over recycling and certain members of the community finding the black bins difficult to use. A host of issues was addressed; however, we were not listened to and a conclusion was reached very quickly. A vote was taken and—surprise, surprise—the ruling administration said that, no, the decision was clearly about whether to have containerisation or not. They had not listened.We tried to pursue the issue in every constructive way with the local council, the environmental and consumer services department and various political groups. However, we did not get anywhere because the decisions had already been made and the raw materials had probably already been bought. There was no listening going on.I agree with your point about the green wheelie bins. I do not think that they are the world's best thing; however, they are better for most people than the black bins. There are probably ways of finding specific methods of waste disposal for those people in the community who find wheelie bins difficult to use, including the frail and the elderly. Particularly small people find the large bins difficult to use. There must be ways to get round that, but such issues were never explored because, by that stage, it was simply too late.We tried to go down every possible route before submitting a petition. Some people considered pursuing a class action through the courts. I did not support that idea personally, but they did and that is fine. However, in the end they decided against it for a number of reasons, of which finance was probably one. We came to the Public Petitions Committee because we had explored almost every other avenue that was open to us. To that end, we have included quite a large amount of paperwork with the petition.As I say, the issue is not the eventual decision. We all appreciate the fact that a decision needed to be made, and black bins have been chosen—that is fine. I can live with the fact that green bins, which I would have preferred, were not chosen. I am able bodied and 6ft tall, so I can use the black bins quite well. What narks us is the process by which that decision was arrived at, which was flawed and haphazard. We do not feel that we were listened to at all.

We have not taken any further action since we submitted the petition.

No, we did not. However, the issue of consultation was a central theme of the meeting in the city chambers as well as of the public meeting that preceded it in the local area. Our displeasure was made keenly known and local councillors have taken the issue forward, as far as I am aware. A number of consultations are presently on the go in Edinburgh and we have expressed our concern to local councillors that we want to ensure that the mistakes are not repeated. In the absence of a public acknowledgement that the process did not go well this time, we do not have confidence that the mistakes will not be repeated—we think that they might well be repeated.

I, personally, have not, although that was made known as a form of action that we could take. I believe that some people have done that, although I could not supply you with their names as I do not know for sure. I have not done that. We have asked our councillors to take forward the issue. It was made pretty clear—directly to the full council meeting when we were invited to the city chambers—that we were unhappy with the consultation procedures. It is not as though we have shied away from making that point; we have made it strongly and more than once. However, I have not pursued the matter through the formal complaints procedure of the City of Edinburgh Council.

The meeting was with the full council. As part of the council meeting, we were invited to make our representations known, so they should have been minuted. As far as I recall, all councillors were in attendance. There were four delegations from the areas in which the policy was being rolled out at that stage.

Indeed, but that is not the issue. If I was asked whether I like the black bins, I would say that I do. I am 6ft tall, so I have no difficulty with them whatever. If I have large amounts of waste, I could probably bin it all without anyone knowing—although perhaps I should not say that on the record. I actually find the black bins okay. What I do not like about them is the fact that there is a feeling that they were imposed when they need not have been.The policy could have been rolled out better in a number of ways. We could have had the best containerisation possible for our area. Along with most others, I do not think that the black bins are the best option. They leave certain issues outstanding, one of which is the recycling agenda. The bigger the bin, the less recycling goes on. We made that point clearly to the council, but we never received an adequate answer, if any answer at all, to that point.

They would have been feasible in our case. That is exactly the kind of thing that we hoped for. We had hoped to have a good two-way discussion about the pros and cons of different types of solutions and about which would be most appropriate for our area. In our case, that would have been the green bins, but you are right that they would not have been appropriate in many other areas. The council should have explored the options rather than adopting the one-size-fits-all approach.Our one concern about the Queen Margaret University College survey was that respondents were offered, I think, £10 to respond. We thought that that might have influenced their decision to be extremely positive about the bins. We might be wrong in that respect, although I doubt it. Again, when we went to the city chambers, we made the point that we were not sure about the reliability of the statistics for that reason.Either way, the point is not about whether the policy has been implemented well or badly elsewhere. The point is that, before a policy is rolled out, there should be proper consultation that is relevant to those people whom it will affect in the near future. That did not happen. I do not necessarily have a problem with the fact that other people like the bins or with how the policy was rolled out. If people like them, that is great and that is how it should be. However, when a new policy is being introduced in different areas, the people who will be directly affected need to be consulted. Part of that consultation might be to show that the proposal has worked out fine elsewhere, but the council did not even do that. There was no two-way consultation. There was no listening and no exchange of ideas.