Petitions Process Inquiry
The fourth agenda item is consideration of a paper on our inquiry into the public petitions process. We have already discussed the relationship that this committee should have with broader issues. This meeting in Dumbarton is an example of our work in that respect and I thank everyone who has managed to attend.
A petition that we received and considered has triggered a wider debate and a decision to hold an inquiry, which is the subject of the paper in front of us. I suggest that, if members have no general views to make known at the outset, we go through the paper page by page and consider any issues or recommendations that might require agreement.
Page 1 simply sets out background information. Moving on to page 2, I seek members' views on the recommendation set out in paragraph 10, which asks the committee
"whether it wishes its inquiry to focus on the wider issues that petition PE1065 raises or to relate only to the public petitions process in line with its remit under Rule 6.10.1(c)."
I am in favour of a broader remit, although the clerk looks a little fearful of that.
We should not narrow down the inquiry at this point. It is important to have as broad a remit as possible because we might have to suggest changes to standing orders.
So we accept the recommendation in paragraph 10 for a wider remit.
Unless there are any other pressing issues, I will simply go through the recommendations. Paragraph 12, which is the second recommendation, asks the committee
"whether it is content with the … draft remit for its inquiry."
I suppose that paragraph 11, which is the draft remit, will need to be amended to take into account that we have just changed the intention set out in paragraph 10.
The committee might consider the remit to be wide enough to pull in the issues set out in PE1065.
We will discuss the matter and ensure that we get something much more focused to consider the next time.
Paragraph 12 is self-evidently agreed. In paragraphs 16, 24 and 30, the committee is asked to agree various sets of questions on which we will seek written evidence. I have no problems with any of those.
In paragraph 38, the committee is asked whether research should be commissioned. Do members think that such a move would be useful? Given that it will add to our intellectual capital, I think that it is absolutely essential.
Paragraph 40 asks the committee whether we should begin the inquiry with a call for written evidence. I think that that is fine, and the timetable set out in paragraph 42 looks okay to me. I take it that members are happy to approve all the recommendations in the paper, subject to the slight amendment to paragraph 10.
I am happy to go along with what is proposed, but I am slightly concerned that we may be overwhelmed with responses, especially given the huge list of contacts on the Equal Opportunities Committee's database.
I understand that stakhanovite medals for the committee's clerking team are being minted as we speak. What volume of responses can we expect?
Although there are 300-plus organisations on the Equal Opportunities Committee's database, experience indicates that only a fairly small number of those are likely to respond.
With those famous last words, we accept the clerk's recommendation.
I return to the issue of research. I vaguely recollect seeing some statistics on the geographical origin of petitions. Can we pull those out and commission research to bottom out why some places submit many petitions and others submit none?
The problem is that there are too many universities in some places.
It would be helpful for us to commission such research. After the election last year, we said that we wanted to look at why some areas are dominant in submitting petitions and others have submitted none or a very small number. Rhoda Grant's concern is spot on.
Members have now approved the paper; the clerks will be happy to beaver away on its recommendations.
That brings us to the end of this afternoon's proceedings. I know that members have had to travel to today's venue, but I hope that the meeting has been of benefit to the petitioners. I thank people for their attendance. Our next meeting will be on Tuesday 9 September. Before I close the meeting formally, I thank everyone who has helped with the arrangements, especially local staff and staff who have come through from the Parliament. In particular, I thank Kay Smith and Sarah McFall from West Dunbartonshire Council and Richard from Rigo's Bistro for the catering. I wish people a safe journey home. I hope that the A82 will be a bit quieter at this time of night.
Meeting closed at 16:43.