The opening of the Scottish Parliament in 1999 saw the establishment of a public petitions system, aimed at strengthening the relationship between the Scottish public and the Parliament. In 2006 an evaluation by Professor Christopher Carman described the petitions system as ‘a vital link between the public and the Parliament’ (2006: 8.3–11). At the same time, Carman raised concerns about transparency and a lack of information on decision-making. This paper looks at how the petitions system works and how it has changed over time. Two decades on from the Carman Review, our conclusions echo similar concerns. Structured, consistent data on the operation of the Committee, including equalities data, is limited or non-existent. Very few petitions are now referred to subject Committees in the wider parliament, raising questions about the Committee's own capacity for scrutiny. No information is available on petitions ruled inadmissible, nor is there an appeals mechanism. Based on our own analysis, petitions now appear to remain under consideration for longer, compared to the early years of the Scottish Parliament. We conclude that, for as long as the Parliament continues to invest in a resource-intensive petitions system, it should be far more straightforward to assess its benefits.
Murray et al. (Thu,) studied this question.