Review of Petitions System (Report)
We move on to item 3. If members will bear with me, I have some comments to make on the independent research on the petitions system, the report on which we are launching today. We thank Dr Christopher Carman from the University of Glasgow and his research assistant, Dr Murray Leith, for the work that they put into the document.
We commissioned the research several months ago, so that its completion would coincide with the lodging of the 1,000th petition. That landmark seemed to be an appropriate point at which to step back from the day-to-day running of the Public Petitions Committee and to seek an external view on how the system has operated, whether it has lived up to the expectations of the first years of the Parliament's establishment, how it has evolved since devolution and what could be done to improve it.
Overall, the research reveals a good picture. It concludes that the petitioning system has given people from Scotland and from further afield a point of access to the Scottish Parliament. Accessibility is a key founding principle of the Parliament, and in that regard the Public Petitions Committee is one of the Parliament's most important instruments.
The fact that the research lists some of our significant successes over the years sends out the message that the petitioning system is far from being a symbolic gesture. We have allowed ordinary people and organisations to effect change on a wide range of issues. Even when we have not been able to ensure that changes are made or have decided that change would not be desirable, we have given people a voice that they might not otherwise have had. That role should not be underestimated. The research notes that for many petitioners, the ability to raise their concerns and have them taken seriously at the heart of the Parliament was in itself a major success.
We are pleased with most of the findings of the research, but the findings on equalities issues are a concern. We put in a lot of effort, not only to monitor the types of people who lodge petitions but to get out of Edinburgh and visit communities throughout Scotland, as we are doing today. However, we still have a bit to do to reach a full cross-section of society. Our officials will hold discussions with the equalities co-ordinating group, which comprises senior representatives of the main equalities organisations in Scotland, to consider what else we can do in that regard. The message is that we are not quite there yet. I welcome the opportunity that the independent research has given us to increase our efforts and ensure that we get things right in future.
I invite members to comment on the report.
The report is thorough and helpful. When we have finished considering it, we must decide what happens to it. I presume that the convener expects it to form part of our legacy paper to our successor committee in the next session of the Parliament, after May's elections. The report will be very informative for new members of the committee.
Table 3.4 shows constituencies with the highest and lowest number of petitioners. I am not surprised that Edinburgh Central had the highest number, with 43 petitioners, and Orkney had the lowest, with just one petitioner. We should suggest in our legacy paper that our successor committee targets the bottom 12 constituencies to achieve better uptake in those areas.
It is not surprising that so many petitions were referred to other committees, but it is interesting to see the figures. I am not surprised to learn that in the first session of the Parliament the Transport and the Environment Committee had the most referrals, with 90, and that the Health and Community Care Committee received 76 referrals. The Finance Committee has received only two referrals in each session of the Parliament—that is the committee to be on if someone does not want to deal with petitions.
I take exception to a comment on page 65 about PE709, on gulf war syndrome. I am pretty sure that I was the member who suggested that we consider the petition in the context of health matters, although it might have been Sandra White. I will take the blame, anyway. I assure the report's author that I know very clearly the difference between devolved and reserved matters, as I am sure does Sandra White. I had a file on gulf war syndrome that was about eight inches thick—I am not kidding—which is why I wanted it to be considered in the context of health. If I remember rightly, the petitioner also wanted the health aspects of gulf war syndrome to be considered. I deliver a tiny slap on the wrists to the author for his comment.
The report shows that although the Public Petitions Committee has done a great job—the clerks should be thanked for their work, too—there is more work to be done.
We do not just need change in the Parliament and the committee; we need cultural change, because lots of the petitions that we receive are lodged by middle-aged white men. We must consider that, as well as the areas in which petitioners live, as Helen Eadie said. We try to go out of Edinburgh, but it is up to us and the Parliament to let people in Scotland know that we can do outreach and come to speak to them. I am sure that in future years a more representative sample of people will lodge petitions.
The figure on petitions from the Kelvin area in Glasgow is slightly skewed because of one gentleman who has been the most prolific petitioner—I will not name him, because most members know him.
I thank everybody in the committee—the clerks, the convener and the members—for making it such an enjoyable committee to be on in Edinburgh and to go out and about with. I am sure that, over the years, the public will come to agree with me that the Public Petitions Committee is the best committee in the Parliament, as it exists to serve the public, which is what the Parliament should do. The report reflects that. It is an honest report, and that is the best that we can do.
Hear, hear.
I agree with Sandra White, but we have to exercise some caution, given the statement on page 3 of the report that
"Overall, 55% of petitioners were not satisfied with the outcome of the petitions process."
That probably has to do with a level of expectation on which, regrettably, we are not capable of delivering. I think that the committee is brilliant, too. Our outreach work is vital in delivering for the Parliament. Nonetheless, if the report is to be a legacy document, that issue must be addressed. Perhaps when petitioners are in initial discussions with the clerks they should be given a more realistic expectation of what might be achieved, given the limited nature of our powers. That might increase the success rate of our work.
I was going to stay silent, but I am genuinely not sure about that comment from John Scott. I would not want us to limit people's aspirations or expectations.
I did not mean that.
The beauty of the committee is that it is a strong symbol of the new kind of democracy. We do not interfere with people who want to bring their concerns directly to us. At the end of the day, people will accept and realise that simply lodging a petition will highlight an issue and maybe get it reconsidered. In some cases, that may result in a positive response, although in many cases that will not happen. People understand that. I do not want to discourage people in any way or limit their expectations, because their expectations will push us to do even more.
The report also shows that people do not want to be managed out of the system. We must allow people to come forward with their expectations, although perhaps we should not encourage them greatly or give them false hope. It is our conduct that directs that. If we give people the impression that we can do something that we cannot do, we can legitimately be criticised. However, we cannot stop people from setting out with an expectation of success by telling them at the outset that they will not achieve it. That is not a positive approach.
That was not my point. Jackie Baillie was being mischievous in suggesting that it was.
Absolutely not.
I am as much a champion of the committee as Jackie Baillie is, but there is no harm in a bit of a reality check, notwithstanding people's aspirations.
That is a fair point and you are entitled to express it.
If there are no other comments, I close the meeting.
Meeting closed at 13:04.