Holyrood, made browsable

Hansard

Every contribution to the Official Report — chamber and committee — searchable in one place. Pulled from data.parliament.scot, indexed for full-text search, linked through to every MSP.

129
Current MSPs
415
MSPs ever elected
13
Parties on record
2,355,091
Hansard contributions
1999–2026
Coverage span
Official Report

Search Hansard contributions

Clear
Showing 0 of 2,355,091 contributions in session S6, 16 Apr 2026 – 16 May 2026. Latest 30 days: 148. Coverage: 12 May 1999 — 14 May 2026.

No contributions match those filters.

← Back to list
Chamber

Meeting of the Parliament 19 January 2016

19 Jan 2016 · S4 · Meeting of the Parliament
Item of business
Public Petitions Process Review

I heartily endorse the comments that were made initially by the current committee convener, which have been endorsed by every member across the chamber who has spoken so far. To some extent, the chamber seems to be echoing the committee, where we tend to operate by consensus, which is a good thing.

I was not aware of the precise history of petitions and I am grateful to David Stewart for his input on that. However, I remember that when I first came into this Parliament in 1999, the consultative steering group was taking pride in bringing in new aspects and the openness that was going to be created here. Part of that approach involved the Public Petitions Committee, how it would operate and how we would interact, not just through the committee but in our daily lives, with the people we are privileged to represent.

The Parliament has always rightly taken pride in the petitions process. Jackson Carlaw was right to make points about that. Others have learnt from us—even here in the city of Edinburgh, the council has mirrored the process. Its process is slightly different but it builds upon what we have here. There are aspects that the committee has learnt about from elsewhere and conveners have travelled far and wide to make sure that we not only impart what we believe we can contribute but learn from others. That is a good thing.

Until late 2014, I had not experienced the petitions process other than when I occasionally contributed points on behalf of constituents and supported them with their petitions. I also picked up vibes from all those who operated in the committee, either as parliamentarians or as members of the public. It reminded me of my days as a lawyer and of judicial review, which is an outlet when no other option is available. To some extent, the committee is about that. It is not about overt political power. It is not necessarily about moving a direct motion. It is about allowing people to have their say—to have their voice heard—as members have said, on what can sometimes be deeply serious, quite moving issues that are indeed quite stressful for the committee, too. The strain can be etched upon the faces of those who contribute. Sometimes the issues are perhaps more flippant and light-hearted but individuals are entitled to raise them because they feel quite passionate about them.

There are obviously points that have to be learned. There are points that will be put in the legacy paper but some points remain universal. The point has already been made about the benefit of external visits. I have participated in those visits and they were enjoyable. However, we need to think about how we can maximise the benefit for the communities that we visit. I believe that the visits have worked well, but that does not mean that they cannot work better. Again, we have to get the balance right between going around the country and ensuring that we are here for those who wish to petition us. There is a significant volume of such people.

As a committee, we have recently been challenged not simply by the right of people to lodge their petitions but the need to take on board the rights and feelings of others who might be affected. That can be challenging because we have had to consider and work through petitions as a committee so that we do not seem to prejudge any aspect of the petitions but take on board that there could be interference in and an effect upon people’s lives.

Equally, we have to get the balance right between holding inquiries—as has been mentioned, the committee’s inquiries have been remarkably successful and were definitely necessary—and just ensuring that we allow people to give their evidence and have their say, either by lodging a petition and doing what they wish thereafter or by coming to the committee and having their voice heard.

It has been a pleasure to serve on the committee. I believe that we need to build on what was established in the Parliament in 1999. The consensus rightly continues. There are things that can be learned but, equally, there is an awful lot that we just have to maintain.

16:00  

In the same item of business

The Deputy Presiding Officer (John Scott) Con
The next item of business is a debate on motion S4M-15343, in the name of Michael McMahon, on a review of the public petitions process. I call Michael McMaho...
Michael McMahon (Uddingston and Bellshill) (Lab) Lab
I am pleased to open this debate on the review of the petitions process. This is the fourth debate that we have had on the Parliament’s petitions process sin...
The Minister for Parliamentary Business (Joe FitzPatrick) SNP
It is right and proper that the Parliament regularly reviews its procedures. That allows the Parliament to examine what has worked well and what it can do be...
David Stewart (Highlands and Islands) (Lab) Lab
I am pleased to speak today as one of the Public Petitions Committee’s ex-conveners. I spent a very happy four years there, and I see familiar faces in the c...
Jackson Carlaw (West Scotland) (Con) Con
I am very happy to contribute to the debate, and I do so as an unreserved fan of the Scottish Parliament’s petitions process. Towards the end of my first se...
Nigel Don (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP) SNP
I cannot help reflecting that all that I have heard so far suggests that that has been the case in this session. I confirm that exactly the same prevailed in...
Jackson Carlaw Con
I am happy to agree on the golden age of Nigel Don on petitions, equally as much as I am on the golden age of petitions with David Stewart. I accept that tha...
Kenny MacAskill (Edinburgh Eastern) (SNP) SNP
I heartily endorse the comments that were made initially by the current committee convener, which have been endorsed by every member across the chamber who h...
Hanzala Malik (Glasgow) (Lab) Lab
It is a pleasure to speak on the review of the public petitions process in the Scottish Parliament. The public petitions system and the Public Petitions Comm...
Angus MacDonald (Falkirk East) (SNP) SNP
I am pleased to contribute to the debate, especially as there has been some negative coverage of the Public Petitions Committee in the media in recent months...
John Wilson (Central Scotland) (Ind) Ind
I, too, take great pleasure in speaking in the debate. I think that I am currently the longest-serving member of the Public Petitions Committee, with almost ...
Michael McMahon Lab
I want to clarify what Mr Wilson just said. It did not require an FOI request to get that information. There was a simple request by someone who had an inter...
John Wilson Ind
Mr McMahon was not a member of the committee at the time when the issue was raised. The committee discussed the matter at the time and surprise was expressed...
Stewart Stevenson (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP) SNP
I congratulate the minister on his brevity, which allows much more time for the backbenchers to express their views on a committee that is, in essence, a cre...
Jackson Carlaw Con
I would like to develop the point that I made in my earlier contribution about the way in which we might more effectively advertise the parliamentary petitio...
David Stewart Lab
This has been an excellent debate with lots of consensus. I am grateful for Jackson Carlaw’s update on Lord Gill. I had missed the fact that he came before t...
The Deputy Presiding Officer Con
You still have a minute and a half, if you want.
David Stewart Lab
This has been an interesting debate. I endorse the conclusions of the independent review of the petitions process. The committee is excellent and should keep...
The Deputy Presiding Officer Con
Given that I sat on the first Public Petitions Committee, it is important for me to remember the spirit of John McAllion, who was its convener. His pioneerin...
David Torrance (Kirkcaldy) (SNP) SNP
I am pleased to close the debate on behalf of the committee. The importance of the petitions process is accepted across the chamber. It is a core part of mee...
Hanzala Malik Lab
I want to run something past Mr Torrance, because he has more experience than I have. What about the petitioners who have been unsuccessful? Is there room fo...
David Torrance SNP
I agree with Hanzala Malik on that point. Petitioners who have brought petitions forward to the committee that have not been successful should have another r...