THE convener of Holyrood's petitions committee has defended its record following claims it has been short-changing the public.
John Pentland insisted the committee, seen as the main way for members of the public to influence government policy in the Holyrood system, was encouraging people to "engage".
He rejected concerns voiced by fellow members of the committee after The Herald revealed figures showing barely a quarter of requests for action were accepted for consideration by MSPs.
The figures, obtained under Freedom of Information, showed 649 petition proposals were submitted between 2011/12 and 2014/15 but only 170, or 26 per cent, were considered by the committee.
The rest were rejected as unsuitable by parliamentary clerks.
The equivalent committee in the Welsh Assembly considered twice as many petitions over the same period.
The figures prompted calls from committee members for a review of rejected proposals and greater transparency in the way they were recorded.
But in a statement issued through the parliament, Labour MSP Mr Pentland said: "For a petition to be taken forward it must call for action that is within the parliament’s power to take.
"It must also relate to a national policy or practice, as opposed to a local or individual concern.
"Unfortunately, the Herald article does not reflect this, or the difference between petitions that are submitted and proposals or enquiries about potential petitions.
"As such it is disingenuous to present these figures as petitions being blocked by parliamentary staff."
He added: "The parliament actively encourages the public to engage with the petitions system."
Committee members John Wilson, an Independent MSP, and Hanzala Malik, one of Mr Pentland';s Labour colleagues, said they would seek more information about rejected petitions when Holyrood returns from its summer break next week.
Petitions currently under consideration include a call for murderers to serve "whole of life" sentences and a request for measures to improve the welfare of pet rabbits.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel