Hansard

It is with enormous pleasure that I close this debate on behalf of the Public Petitions Committee. Those who follow our work will know that we are very much a committee of firsts. For example, we are the first committee of the Parliament to meet in the wonderful Alness academy in my constituency.

I want to highlight not so much a first but a possible record. I have been a member of the committee in session 1, session 2 and session 3—a total of 443 weeks so far. [Applause.] Now, if someone wants to go and check that to prove me wrong, be my guest. It is for others to judge whether it is a record that I should be proud of.

The Public Petitions Committee is an extremely important committee if we are to be true to the founding principles adopted in 1999. Our existence and role and the participation of citizens in our work are why the process has developed international recognition. Delegations from Wales, Catalonia, Canada, Sri Lanka, Tasmania, Western Australia, Victoria, Queensland, the Crimea, the Czech Republic, Gauteng in South Africa, Ethiopia, Japan, Vietnam, Bavaria, Saxony, Malawi and the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, as well as John Smith fellows, have come to discuss and learn more about our system. The Australian House of Representatives has established a dedicated Committee on Petitions with which we held two videoconferences. Next week we meet the Petitions Committee of the German Bundestag. It refers to the petitions process as that Parliament’s “seismograph”, which I think is an appropriate expression.

The convener touched on our collaborative approach to considering petitions and the committee’s consensual nature. I would like to expand on that, because several speakers mentioned the same thing. There are, I believe, three elements to the effective consideration of a petition. The first is the constructive participation of the petitioner in the process. Seeking their views on the written responses received on the petition, giving them the opportunity to suggest a way forward and providing an opportunity to some to come and speak ensures that they make a direct contribution to the debate.

The second is the way in which we gather information. As I suggested, that will involve seeking written responses from a number of key organisations. We try to identify organisations and individuals at home and abroad who can contribute to the investigation of the petition and broaden awareness of the issue. We now ask petitioners to suggest organisations to contact and questions to ask.

That takes me on to the third key element, which is collaboration. There is a maturity and honesty in the process. It is not about proving that someone was wrong. Legislation, guidelines and policies are introduced with the best of intentions and a belief that they will do good, but sometimes the measures do not work out as planned or do not reflect people’s needs. Improvements to policies and procedures can be brought about only if we work together with key organisations that are relevant to the petition’s subject matter. In most cases, the Scottish Government is central to that and I believe that the relationship between us and it has been constructive.

A question that is often asked is, “How many successful petitions have there been since 1999?” We do not know. We cannot easily record that, as our view on the success of a petition might differ from the petitioner’s. Success will take different forms. One approach that we have adopted on a number of occasions, when it was felt beneficial, was to invite the Scottish Government to meet the petitioner to discuss the issue raised. That can be regarded as a success because we put the individual in the same room as officials, perhaps even the minister, to clarify and discuss the issue. On some occasions that might be all that we can do. Most petitioners do not get everything that they set out to achieve and there might be very good reasons for that, but I think that the Scottish Government has met the petitioners on every occasion we requested.

The 2006 research into the petitions process says:

“the ability of common folk to bring their concerns to the Parliament through the petitions system is democracy in action. You aren’t always going to get what you want but at least the Scottish Parliament has to look at your petition.”

All the changes and improvements that have come about are down to collaboration.

How are we doing for time, Presiding Officer?