Public Petitions Committee, 01 Feb 2000

Meeting date: Tuesday, February 1, 2000

Official Report 152KB pdf

---

Scottish Parliament Public Petitions Committee Tuesday 1 February 2000 (Afternoon)

[The Convener opened the meeting at 14:06]

I welcome everyone to the second meeting of the new millennium of the Public Petitions Committee. I extend a warm welcome to Nora Radcliffe, who is not a member of the committee but is here today because of a constituency interest in one of the petitions. When it comes to the part of the agenda in which you are interested, Nora, feel free to contribute to the discussion.

Thank you, convener.

I have had an apology from Christine Grahame, who will be unable to attend this afternoon.

Before we turn to the new petitions, it may be useful to have a quick discussion about Mr Harvey, who, members will remember, had six petitions on the previous agenda. He has a further three on today's agenda and four more will be on the agenda at our next meeting. Mr Harvey will make this committee work hard, as he obviously intends to send a great many petitions to the Parliament.

However, we must prevent the Parliament and the other committees from becoming overburdened. We do not necessarily have to refer every petition that is put to this committee to another committee or to the Executive. It is possible for us to agree not to take action on a petition. For instance, we could take the view that the time that the Parliament would have to give to the petition to allow it to go further would not be justified, or that the first recourse of petitioners should not always be to the Parliament, particularly if the issue is the responsibility of another elected organisation, such as a council.

Two of you know Mr Harvey—do you have any views on this?

I know Mr Harvey, as does Pauline McNeill. I have always said that it is great that the Public Petitions Committee exists, not just for pressure groups but for individuals. Although I agree that Mr Harvey is good at submitting petitions, particularly on local issues that affect him, I would not like us to decide whether people may submit their petitions to the committee. I would back up your idea that petitions could be sent to local authorities and so on, particularly when—as has been the case with some of Mr Harvey's petitions—they regard issues that are relevant to local government.

This committee was set up so that members of the public could air their grievances. I agree that sending petitions to the Executive might be a waste of time, as the Executive would perhaps refer them to local government, where we should have sent them in the first place, but I certainly think that it should be possible for any petition to be presented to this committee.

I put on record last week my view that Mr Harvey had a useful contribution to make. However, I concur with you, convener, that, although petitioners should be allowed to submit petitions, it is not on for them to submit five or six. We have a responsibility to ensure that we do not burden committees and the Executive with petitions every week.

I will make proposals about where particular petitions should be referred and will be happy to recommend that a petition that is on a subject that I think is directly relevant and useful be sent to a specific committee. You are right, convener, to say that we should think in every case whether Mr Harvey could get an answer from somewhere else before we refer his petitions to a committee or to the Executive. There must be balance.

I agree with Pauline McNeill. We should highlight to the public the value of the work of the Scottish Parliament in this regard. I get the sense that the way in which we monitor petitions and take action on them is unique; it demonstrates that other organisations need to be as accountable. Petitions such as those from Mr Harvey are often born of frustration with trying to get action elsewhere. If we can lead by example on what is expected of petitions, other organisations may decide that what we do gives them another option. Therefore, the clerks should check whether petitioners have done x, y, and z before the committee accepts the petitions.

It is nice that everyone is in agreement. I stress that there is nothing personal against Mr Harvey. We are just setting a precedent for dealing with individual petitioners who submit a large number of petitions. The principle is that everybody has the right to petition the Scottish Parliament and to be heard. However, it is the job of this committee to judge each petition on its merits and to decide whether further action by the Parliament is justified. I am very pleased by what members have said on the matter.