Hansard

I commend, as others have, the work of the Public Petitions Committee not only this session but since 1999. A number of members have already illustrated the committee’s successes during that period.

I also pay tribute to the committee members for their hard work. It is recognised that being a member of the Public Petitions Committee does not offer the same headline-grabbing opportunities that other committees do, but the role is crucial in ensuring that members of the public have an opportunity to raise local and national issues of importance, and in monitoring petitions to ensure that the public get the engagement that they deserve from the process.

I have never been a member of the committee, but I have made representations on a number of occasions on behalf of constituents who have submitted petitions. I recall a petition that was raised some time ago by my constituent Margaret Ann Cummings, whose son Mark Cummings was tragically murdered by the registered sex offender Stuart Leggate.

In submitting her petition, Margaret Ann Cummings made some powerful and constructive points in respect of managing sex offenders. It was a very successful petition as, for the first time ever, the Parliament set up a sub-committee—of the Justice 2 Committee, in that case—which made more than 33 recommendations. That made a genuine difference to how the previous and current Governments formed their points of view about how to manage registered sex offenders.

Margaret Ann Cummings and other petitioners, including Margaret Watson, who is another constituent of mine, have commented on the respect that they felt they received at the committee and the genuine way in which the committee worked on a cross-party basis to consider their petitions. We should welcome that example of good practice.

I also welcome the committee’s public outreach programme, which involves visiting various parts of Scotland. As the convener pointed out, there are parts of Scotland that we would not have been able to reach if it was not for the process in which the committee engaged.

Of course, we should never be complacent, as Parliament sometimes can be. The committee has shown us, through its own level of best practice, the best ways to ensure that we engage with people throughout Scotland.

I am mindful of the fact that the committee is sometimes viewed as a last port of call for members of the public, who may have dealt with a number of authorities and now see the committee as a way of solving their concerns. We need to consider that, but we also need to think about why members of the public arrive at the petitions process in the first place. There may be some constructive work for the committee in the future in considering why members of the public are not being treated fairly by the authorities to which they have been referred. In my experience of petitions, that is particularly the case with the quango health boards throughout Scotland, which on many occasions have not listened to the concerns of local members of the public, who end up submitting a petition. We need to examine that process.

I look forward to the rest of the debate. Some powerful points have been made already, and I look forward to making some concluding remarks in my closing speech.

15:08