Hansard

We have had an interesting debate this afternoon that has highlighted the importance of the Public Petitions Committee. The Scottish Constitutional Convention’s report said that locating a Parliament in Scotland would mean that it was more accessible than Westminster. Robin Harper talked about the idea of access being important to the committee. Under the standing orders, the committee was designed to be one of the vehicles that would ensure the involvement of people in Scotland in democracy, and giving people the opportunity to submit a petition before a committee of MSPs is an excellent way of enabling that.

Bruce Crawford mentioned that the committee is internationally renowned. That is correct, but there is concern about whether it is being marketed effectively in Scotland. When I read the committee’s report on its processes, I was surprised to learn that, although 194 petitions were lodged in the Parliament’s first year, fewer than 120 a year have been lodged since the start of session 2. After almost 12 years, we might have expected there to be greater awareness of the petitions process. Obviously, there is still work to be done.

John Wilson mentioned Dr Carman’s research study with Ipsos MORI, which revealed that most of those who participate in the process are among the older and better educated groups and are more likely to be middle class and to live in an affluent area than the average Scot. It also revealed that there is a disappointing lack of diversity in terms of minority participation. Perhaps we could all do more to promote the use of petitions when we are contacted by constituents.

Rhona Brankin, Bruce Crawford, Paul Martin and others mentioned that the committee had taken steps to address those issues, through the production of a blog and podcasts and the publication of a streamlined leaflet, as well as through the outreach programme, which many other members mentioned. I agree with the committee’s point that a balance must be struck. There is just one committee to deal with petitions, and it contains only nine MSPs and operates with a handful of support staff—the clerks, SPICe and others, whom Nigel Don thanked for all their hard work. The committee—and by extension the Parliament—will be successful with regard to accessibility only if it is able properly to scrutinise each petition that is brought before it.

There are many examples of petitions that have been submitted by groups or members of the public that have gone on to achieve some degree of success. The Laurencekirk crossing petition, which Mike Rumbles mentioned, is one such petition, although there is still a long way to go until the petitioners are satisfied. Of course, all success is relative.

I highlight a petition that originated in my community in the South of Scotland, which is also nationally significant. Last autumn, Daphne Jackson submitted a petition on behalf of Ettrick and Yarrow community council regarding the standard of mobile phone coverage in rural areas. The petition, which gained 780 signatures, called on the Parliament to urge the Government to make direct representations, which is what happened. The petition gained local media coverage and was considered by the committee in November. The committee agreed to write to a number of organisations, including the Scottish Government, fire brigades, the Scottish Ambulance Service and the Office of Communications, and I trust that it has now received responses. I, too, made representations on that difficult issue.

Everyone has highlighted their own pet petitions today. That is one example—although everybody has given their own examples—of how a petition can lead to greater awareness of an issue among the public and elected officials, and to action thereafter.

15:51