Public Petitions Committee, 02 Oct 2001
Meeting date: Tuesday, October 2, 2001
Official Report
245KB pdf
Inadmissible Petitions
Lochgelly Sub-post Office (IP14)
The first inadmissible petition is IP14, from Alan McGuire, on behalf of the Lochgelly Community Regeneration Forum, which calls for the Parliament to ensure that the Lochgelly sub-post office is not relocated.
Several issues are relevant. The Scottish Parliament has no power to take the action that the petitioners request. Commercial considerations, which the Parliament has no power to influence, are also involved in the location of sub-post offices. It is recommended that the petitioners be advised that, although the petition is inadmissible, we will pass it to the relevant UK Government minister for attention and send a copy of the correspondence to Post Office Counters Ltd for information. We could also suggest that the petitioners raise the matter with their local MP.
That is fine. The issue that the petition raises has other implications. I do not know whether Helen Eadie has written to everyone, but she was good enough to write to me to put down some of her reservations. I will pass the information to the clerk. Perhaps Helen Eadie passed the information to me because she knows that I have a direct link with Lochgelly and know the town quite well.
Helen Eadie says that the Post Office's consultation process did not comply with its code of practice on consultation.
Westminster would have to deal with that.
Westminster will consider that.
Another element is the way in which local government in Scotland manages its affairs. The post office is in a central location in Lochgelly, which is receiving much regeneration money. Efforts are being made to re-establish that part of the town centre. I would have thought that it would be reasonable for us, as well as passing on our comments to the relevant UK minister, to raise the issue with Fife Council. The council must have played some part in the post office's relocation, even if that was only on issues such as where bus stops would be and how traffic would be affected. The council would have had some input.
Helen Eadie could raise that directly with the local authority.
The petition has come to the committee, and that action would be a by-product of the petition. People in Lochgelly are concerned. Perhaps Fife Council has played a part.
The problem is that the heart of the petition is a matter for Westminster, rather than the Scottish Parliament. That is why the petition is inadmissible. However, I see no harm in passing a copy of the petition to Fife Council for information and explaining that, as we have passed the petition to Westminster, the council should contact Westminster with any comments. Is that okay?
Members indicated agreement.
Driving Licences (IP15)
Inadmissible petition IP15 is from Ms Tricia Donegan. It calls on the Parliament to take the necessary steps to increase fines for unlicensed drivers who cause injury or death and to ensure that cars cannot be sold to drivers who do not hold a full driving licence.
Driving licences and issues that relate to driving offences are reserved matters and we have no power to take the action that the petitioner requests. It is recommended that the petitioner be advised that, although the petition is inadmissible, the committee will pass it to the relevant UK Government department and ask officials to respond directly to her on the issues that have been raised. We could also suggest that the petitioner raise her concerns with her local MP. Is that agreed?
Members indicated agreement.