Procedures Committee,

Meeting date: Tuesday, May 10, 2005

Official Report 252KB pdf

---

Public Petitions (Admissibility)

As far as the previous item is concerned, I hope that a report on the evidence that we have received on the Sewel convention will be available for our next meeting. That should allow us to decide the direction of our report, which I hope will be published before the summer recess.

Our next item of business is a new inquiry on the admissibility of public petitions, which is a referral from the Public Petitions Committee. I am pleased to welcome to the meeting Michael McMahon MSP, the convener of the Public Petitions Committee, and Jim Johnston, clerk to the Public Petitions Committee, who will give evidence on why such changes require to be made. I invite Michael to make a few opening remarks, after which I will open things up to members' questions.

I thank the committee for the opportunity to talk about this issue. The Public Petitions Committee welcomes the Procedures Committee's support for a recommendation to amend standing orders in order to prohibit MSPs from submitting petitions. However, I understand that you have some questions about the proposal on resubmitting petitions. Although I am happy to answer those questions this morning, it might be useful briefly to outline the background to our proposals.

Members will be aware that one of the strengths of the public petitions system is the emphasis on openness and accessibility, which is reflected in the admissibility criteria that are set out in the standing orders. The Public Petitions Committee has emphasised that its proposals on resubmission are not in any way intended to limit such openness and accessibility. Indeed, the rolling programme of committee events that promote awareness of public petitions and provide practical guidance on petitioning illustrates that our intentions are quite the opposite. In that respect, we aim to visit all eight parliamentary regions in the current session.

However, as our first report in 2005 makes clear, we aim to prevent abuse of the system in which a petitioner who is dissatisfied with the outcome of his or her petition simply resubmits it. For example, some petitioners have indicated that they intend to resubmit their petitions until they get the result that they want. At the moment, no procedure prevents that from happening.

Although the practice is not widespread, colleagues will be aware of the extremely heavy workload of the Public Petitions Committee. At each meeting, we usually consider a total of 14 petitions, of which six are new petitions, and hear evidence from three groups of petitioners who we have invited to give oral evidence. The volume of petitions that we receive means that there is little or no slack in the system. Although the volume of resubmitted petitions may not be great, they can act as a drain on the limited resources that our clerks have available to them.

The Scottish Civic Forum has stated:

"It would be unfortunate if new petitions were delayed for consideration because of repeat petitions clogging up the system."

Moreover, they can be seen to undermine the credibility of the system.

I hope that I have made it clear that the Public Petitions Committee seeks to enhance the effectiveness of petitions and, at the same time, not impinge on the ability of all members of the public to petition the Parliament.

In a previous paper on the subject, the Procedures Committee referred to the scope of the ban on resubmissions. The Public Petitions Committee does not want to ban resubmissions, but to control them. I appreciate that procedural matters are often more complex that they might initially appear, and I am happy to take questions on any of the difficulties that may arise from our proposals.

You can correct me if I am wrong, Michael, but I assume that the Public Petitions Committee has more petitions than it knows what to do with. If a petition is constantly resubmitted, it will take up the time not only of the Public Petitions Committee but of the other committees to which it is referred. In turn, resubmitted petitions prevent new petitions from getting on to the agenda.

The Procedures Committee is being asked to agree to your proposal. Is the driving force behind that proposal the Public Petitions Committee's wish to enable new petitions to be considered more quickly than is the case at present? I ask you to confirm or reject the suggestion.

Thank you for the question, which allows us to confirm that that is exactly what our proposal is all about. I have some ballpark figures for the committee: last year, we considered 110 new petitions, of which 7 per cent were resubmissions, or work that the committee had already undertaken. I am sure that any committee of the Parliament would agree that that is a substantial proportion.

The primary difficulty in resubmissions relates to the work that the clerks have to do in preparing them for the committee's consideration. If a petition is resubmitted, the clerks have to investigate it and undertake all the paperwork and research that is required to make the petition presentable for our consideration.

Clearly, the Public Petitions Committee is under pressure because of the number of petitions that we receive. Given that we are trying to increase the number of the petitions, we have to see what we can do at the other end of the scale. We are not saying that people should not be allowed to resubmit petitions; we are saying that we have to create the space in which to grow new petitions by not just considering petitions that we have already addressed.

Before I ask Karen Gillon to come in again, will you clarify the additional work that the clerks are required to do in order to determine that a resubmitted petition requires no further action?

I will ask the clerk to answer the question.

Obviously, it is not appropriate for the clerks to prejudge how the committee looks on a resubmitted petition. It is therefore important that a resubmitted petition is considered in the same way as any other petition is considered.

Dialogue usually takes place between officials and petitioners on a petition, and that is also the case for a resubmitted petition. It may be that aspects of the resubmitted petition are inadmissible, in which case dialogue would need to take place on those elements of the petition. The resubmitted petition also has to be treated in the same way as any other petition: it has to be lodged in the business bulletin, added to the committee agenda and set out in a briefing note for committee members. A lot of the material may seem the same as the material that we prepared when the petition was initially submitted, but that is not always the case.

Having read the paper—some of which I agree with and some of which I do not—I have a second issue to raise. Every petition goes through the process in this Parliament and before members elected to this Parliament. The Public Petitions Committee considers each petition and may decide to refer it to another committee or the Executive and to consider the committee or Executive response; it may then agree to close the petition. You suggest that a ban should not carry over into the next parliamentary session. I assume that that is because no Parliament can bind its successor—different members may take a different view of a petition. Although the suggestion is sensible, why have you taken the arbitrary figure of a year rather than six months?

I agree that it is an arbitrary figure; we accepted that the figure would be an arbitrary one from the outset. That said, it is not uncommon for a petition to take two or three years from the start to the finish of the process. Some of the more substantial petitions that we have considered have taken that length of time to go through the process.

Although some petitions can take a lot less time to address and take forward, we feel that a year is around the average length of time for a petition to go through the process. If a petition that has been closed or has been subject of a committee inquiry is resubmitted, it is not outwith the bounds of possibility that it could take a year to address the issues that it raises. Although we decided that a year was the appropriate timescale, Karen Gillon rightly says that we could have decided on a timescale of six months—or, indeed, 18 months.

We are looking not for a hard-and-fast rule, but for an element of flexibility. If a petition was resubmitted and we were made aware that a substantial amount of new information was involved, we would consider it as a new petition. We do not want to close off the subject matter; we want to address the fact that a petition that has been completely addressed by the Parliament has then been resubmitted without any substantial change having been made. We believe that a year is the appropriate timescale, as it gives the petitioner enough time in which to reassess the situation.

Committee members are sympathetic to what the Public Petitions Committee is trying to achieve. It is fair to say that people should not be able to come back again and again with a petition, as that takes up time that could be used to consider other petitions on a wide variety of subjects. That said, I am concerned that you are using a sledgehammer to crack a nut.

The Public Petitions Committee either has a rule on the resubmission of petitions or it does not. On the criteria that the committee sets down for the clerks to apply, how can the clerks take decisions on whether enough new information is involved? Surely such decisions have to be taken by the committee.

We have some suggestions about how to deal with the proposal, and I will float one of them past you. If it is clear that a petition is simply a resubmitted petition, surely the Public Petitions Committee should have the power to say, "The petition is closed. We will not reconsider it". Would that not be a better way of doing things? If a petition were resubmitted—perhaps in a better format or because of a change in circumstances—surely the one-year rule would prohibit the Public Petitions Committee from reconsidering it. Is there not another way to achieve the same objective—one that gives the committee the flexibility that it seeks so that it can deal with petitions that it may want to consider again?

You raised two or three issues. I will give a concrete example of why the suggestion would not work. A number of petitions were submitted on the closure of rural schools. The petitions were passed to the Education, Culture and Sport Committee, which was conducting an inquiry into the subject. A substantial amount of time elapsed before the inquiry was concluded, at the end of which the petitions were closed.

Before the end of the process, a petition on the same subject was submitted through our e-petitioner system. Given that it raised a matter that the Parliament could address, we could not rule it out as inadmissible; however, we had no power to say that the subject had been addressed by the Parliament. That allows petitioners' expectations to be raised, although the matters raised in their petitions have been addressed by the Parliament, and means that we are asking them to use the system without having regard to the subjects on which the Parliament has adjudicated. We still have a petition out there on a matter that clearly has been closed. We cannot do anything about that and the petition will have to come before us. If we had powers to prevent that from happening, we could save everyone a lot of time.

I am suggesting that, as a committee, you get the power to close a petition.

We have that power.

Do you have the power to close a petition immediately, before you consider it?

No.

So if a petition on a matter that clearly has been considered is resubmitted—you gave the example of petitioners going on and on until they get the answer that they want—you want the power to say, "No, we regard this petition as closed." Would that solve the problem?

It would to an extent, but although a petition may be closed, it may be resubmitted by another equally legitimate source, and we would have difficulty if it was not considered in detail.

But your proposed rules on the resubmission of petitions would not prevent someone from simply getting somebody else to resubmit a closed petition. I am suggesting that the committee be given the power to examine the petition and say, "No, we've dealt with this matter substantially, and we simply aren't going to consider it. We're going to close the petition."

We are trying to stop not the petitioner but the subject matter of the petition.

I understand that, because if a petition is resubmitted under another name, you could find yourselves in the same trap.

Defining what a resubmitted petition is might be as difficult as saying that a petition is closed. That is the issue that we are trying to get at. Would it be better simply to improve the rules to allow the committee to say, "We consider that this matter has already been adequately considered by the Parliament"?

The difficulty is that the committee would have to make that decision; therefore, the clerks would have to do all the work to present the petition. That approach would also give the petition the same legitimacy as every other petition is given.

But should not the committee make that decision, rather than the clerk? Would not the system come into disrepute if a petitioner felt that their petition was not considered by committee members?

With all due respect, that is what happens at present. The problem that we have identified is that once a petition is submitted, the clerk has to go through all the processes to get that petition on to our agenda before we close it. All the work is done and the resources are used before we get the petition on to the agenda, which is when the committee makes its decision. We do not have the power to talk to a petitioner and prevent a petition that has already been addressed by the Parliament from coming forward.

That is the point. Suppose you get a petition from Caithness, the subject of which has, in your opinion, already been dealt with in a similar petition from Galloway, albeit from different people. Can you go to the petitioner and say, "These are the findings from an earlier petition, so do you still want to submit your petition?"

At the moment, we have no power to do that. If the petitioner insists on submitting their petition, we have no power to stop them.

Do you think that you should have that power?

Yes. That is what we are asking for. At the moment, the petition will get on to the agenda, and in getting there it ties up the resources of the clerks. It also prevents new petitions on new issues from getting on to the agenda quicker.

What happens if you have a petition that is similar but not the same?

That would be treated as a different petition. The clerks are not there to prevent petitions from coming forward. If a petitioner submits a petition on a particular subject that highlights a different issue for the Parliament to address, it is treated as a different petition.

This may be happening because we are in the second session—I do not think that it happened much in the first session—but petitions that have gone through the system are being resubmitted because the petitioner is not happy with the outcome of the original petition, and we have no power to prevent that. If a petitioner insists on resubmitting their petition, the clerks have to start the process of getting it on to the agenda, which is where the problem kicks in.

You talked about 7 per cent of petitions being resubmissions. How did you reach that figure?

It is a rough figure that arose from our examination of the 110 petitions that were lodged during the period of the current annual report. My team considered all the petitions that were lodged and made a judgment.

Did you consider whether petitions were identical but from a different petitioner, identical and from the same petitioner, or similar to other petitions?

There was a mixture. We appreciate that the matter is complex. Some petitions were clearly identical, others were the same but lodged by a different petitioner, and others were on the same issue.

I can appreciate Michael McMahon's point if he seeks to eliminate substantially equivalent petitions, but I am unhappy with the wording

"the same or similar terms",

because "similar terms" is far broader and could include petitions that are on the same subject but from a different source or which have a different perspective.

We are looking at only those petitions that have already gone through the system. At any given time in the system, we can have four or five petitions on the same subject—on telecommunications masts or the closure of rural schools, for example. However, when the Parliament—either through the Public Petitions Committee or another committee—closes a petition and another one is submitted on the same subject, we start the process of considering a petition that has already been addressed. We want to address only those circumstances. We are not saying that because we already have a petition on a subject we do not want to take any more.

I can understand that that would apply to "the same" subject, as you describe it, but the paper refers to "similar terms". The difference between "the same" and "similar" is giving the committee some concern.

I can give examples. Some organisations submit a petition in the name of an individual. Consideration of the petition is concluded, and the same or a similar petition—on a subject that has been addressed and which seeks the same thing from the Parliament—is brought forward in the name of another person who is a member of the same organisation. The wording of the petition could be different, but the petition is similar and we know that the request in the petition is the same.

But the question relates to who should exercise that judgment. Should it be the committee or the clerks?

The clerks do not make that judgment anyway.

With respect, if your suggestion is agreed to, the clerks would make the decision.

Only in conjunction with me. Ultimately, the committee decides on petitions that come before it. We are trying to stop the clerks' time being taken up in examining petitions that we know from the outset are quite clearly the same.

I hear what Michael McMahon is saying, which is that the clerks have to do a degree of work to get a petition on to the agenda before it can be closed. I see a democratic danger in leaving to a clerk the decision whether a petition can be readmitted. Somewhere down the line, clerks, who cannot defend themselves, will be accused of taking an arbitrary decision. Would not it be useful if the rules were changed such that, instead of doing all the work, the clerks simply referred straightforward resubmissions—as defined by a set of criteria—to the committee with a recommendation that they not be considered? The committee could close such petitions at that point, without the clerks doing all the preparatory work. In other words, the clerk could say, "We believe that these eight petitions to the Public Petitions Committee are resubmissions," or whatever they are called, and the committee could say, "We will close them."

I refer you to the clerk, because he has the practical experience.

There is no question of clerks deciding on anything. The role of the clerk is to advise on petitions. If the petitioner rejects or contends the advice of the clerk, the petition goes to the committee for a decision. The standing orders are quite clear that it is for the Public Petitions Committee to decide on a petition's admissibility. Therefore, if there was any dispute about whether a petition had been resubmitted, I would first discuss the matter with the convener, and if the petitioner was unhappy that their petition had been classified as resubmitted, the matter would go to the committee for a decision.

I do not follow everything that happens in the Public Petitions Committee—I am sure that Michael McMahon will be disappointed to hear that—but I agree that matters go back and forward and that sometimes a petition rings a bell with members, who realise that they considered the subject some time ago. I agree that something has to be done, but I understood that Dr Johnston would make a recommendation to the Public Petitions Committee about whether a matter had been dealt with previously by a committee of the Parliament. Let us imagine that there are half a dozen petitions on the agenda for a meeting. The clerk's recommendation might be that a matter had been dealt with in the past and that a particular petition should proceed no further. That would be like a paper exercise. Is that the intention?

That is what currently happens.

You said that for that to happen, the clerks must do all the work and follow the agreed procedure. However, the process could be different. For example, you might agree that, of 12 new petitions on the agenda, nine should go forward because they raised matters that the Parliament had never considered, but three petitions should go no further than that meeting.

If such a petition appears on the committee's agenda, there is a question about the legitimacy of the original decision of the committee—or whatever the process—to consider the petition. The expectations of the people who lodged the petition are also raised and the credibility of the agenda can be in question.

I am sure that your committee has discussed the matter long and hard. Did you agree that your proposed approach offers the best way forward?

Yes. We produced and discussed a paper that considered the practical difficulties. As you said, members of the Public Petitions Committee recognise petitions as they progress through the Parliament and we often get a feel for the organisations that are behind them. Members identified an issue to do with our taking time to consider petitions on matters that we have already considered, which come from organisations that have already submitted a petition, for which the clerks have had to do all the preparatory work.

I am sympathetic to the need for a solution to the problem. However, Bruce McFee suggested that you might be setting aside your democratic responsibility to make decisions that are delegated to you as convener. How does such an approach tie in with the Parliament's principles of inclusion and openness?

I have not convened other committees, but I have raised issues with conveners of other committees who have said, "That is not a priority for us at the moment," or "That is something that we might look at." It is then for that convener to decide when the matter will come before their committee. As the convener of the Public Petitions Committee, I do not have that authority. I cannot say that a petition should or should not go forward; I must accept that once a petition is lodged, a process is started and the petition will reach the committee. Only when it reaches the committee can we decide whether it should have come before us in the first place.

Jim Johnston might be the best person to answer this question. Currently, standing orders require that the Public Petitions Committee decides whether a petition is inadmissible. How does that happen in practice?

In practice, the role of the clerk is to advise on admissibility and a lot of work is done with officials and the petitioners. For example, we often have to get advice from the legal team on whether it is within the Parliament's competence to deal with the matter that the petition raises. Having sought that legal advice, we go back to the petitioner and, if necessary, explain why a petition is inadmissible. In the vast majority of cases, the petitioners are happy with that advice—and it is made clear that it is advice. When a petitioner is unhappy with the advice, I discuss the matter with the convener and the convener decides whether the petition should go on the agenda so that the whole committee can make a decision on its admissibility. Crucially, it is the committee that makes any decision.

So the committee is seeking an additional criterion to the three that exist regarding what is inadmissible—the additional criterion being whether a petition in the same or similar terms has already been discussed—so that the clerk can go to the petitioner and say, "We think that the petition involves the same or similar terms and so it will not be acceptable." If the petitioner disputes that, the matter will go to the committee for a decision. Is that what you are saying?

The fact that a petition has been resubmitted means that it must have been admissible in the first place. At present, if it is admissible, I do not have any powers to rule it out.

I am trying to clarify the procedure that the petition would then go through. At present, if a petition is resubmitted, it must be considered before the committee can decide not to take any further action on it. You are saying that you want a procedure that would allow the clerk to say to the petitioner, "This is a resubmission, so it cannot proceed for at least another X months." If the petitioner disputed that, the matter would still go to the committee to—

Ultimately, that decision would have to be made, yes.

I was trying to find a way through this, but I think that the convener may well have done so—

I wanted to ask—

I am sorry to interrupt, but I want to make it clear to Jamie McGrigor that, as the convener, I will ask members to speak when it is their turn. Karen Gillon indicated some time ago that she wanted to speak and I indicated that she would be allowed to speak. I will ask Jamie McGrigor to speak next.

As long as we remember that I am a member of the committee, too.

The convener may have found a way through by establishing another criterion that would make a petition inadmissible. I presume that, in whatever process was gone through, a report would be made to the committee; it would not be just an arbitrary decision of the convener that would not be reflected anywhere. At some point, a report would have to be made to the committee on petitions that had been ruled out and the committee would endorse the decisions and conclusions that had been reached. That process seems quite simple. You would not be taking the committee out of the process and you would not be creating an extra layer of work for the clerks ahead of the committee making that decision.

Ultimately, we need you to give us the powers that we are asking for. At the moment, we do not have them. If a petition is clearly admissible—if it is a readmission, it must initially have been admissible—we have no powers to say to the petitioners that they cannot lodge that petition. That is what we need to be able to do. If we cannot do that, the petition must be considered as a new petition and the clerks have to use up the resources of the committee to present it as a new petition.

If we created an additional criterion (d) in rule 15.5.2 that reiterated the words that are in your report—that a petition should not be in

"the same or similar terms"

as a petition that has been closed—would that give you the power that you require?

I think that it would.

I was slightly concerned by what you said about groups using individuals to lodge petitions. Are you suggesting that the system is being taken over by lobbyists? The whole point of the Public Petitions Committee is to allow individuals to lodge petitions that are relevant to their area. Do you think that that is happening? Moreover, do you think that individuals should be limited in the number of petitions that they can lodge in a year?

We should not try to limit the number of petitions that are submitted. Through practice and through dealing with organisations and individuals, the committee becomes aware of the source of a petition. However, that does not present any difficulties. We deal with each petition purely on its merits; we are interested not in where it has come from, but in its content and what it is asking for. If a petition meets the admissibility criteria, we are not concerned whether its source is A, B or C.

That said, we are concerned that, after we close a petition, the organisation that is behind it might simply choose another member to try to make the petition's contents appear new and to resubmit it, when the substance might be the same or similar to that in the petition that the committee had already rejected or that the Parliament had already addressed. The difficulty is that we cannot stop that happening.

Has it ever been appropriate for a petition to be resubmitted? For example, circumstances might have changed, new information might have come to light or the information might have been poorly presented the first time around. Is there a danger that amending rule 15.5.2 might simply make it impossible for petitions to be resubmitted even though there might be occasions when doing so might be correct, helpful and appropriate?

No, because in the circumstances that you have outlined such a petition would be entirely new. We are talking about a petition that is similar in wording and identical in request to a petition that has already been rejected.

What if a petitioner felt that the petition had been referred to the wrong committee and was trying to get it back on to your agenda so that it could be sent to a different place?

That would be a resubmission. In other words, the same petition would come back to the committee again. If a petitioner wanted their petition to be sent to a particular committee, they would have to say so in the petition. That would make it a new petition, and we would then have to consider the question whether it was appropriate to meet their request. We do not simply comply with every request that petitioners make. However, if a petitioner submits new information and asks for something different to be done, they have submitted a new petition.

The issue is the resubmission of a petition that makes the same request purely because the petitioners are not happy with the outcome of our consideration of the first petition. For example, one committee spent a lot of time on an inquiry that was based on a petition. When the inquiry was concluded, the petitioner resubmitted the petition because they were not satisfied with the outcome. Moreover, because the committee membership had changed, they wanted the new committee to consider the matter.

There seems to be agreement that amending rule 15.5.2 and changing the criteria would prevent the clerk from having to carry out more work, because he or she would have already done that work when the petition was first submitted.

We should perhaps leave aside the question of the period during which the petitioners cannot resubmit a petition. After all, if we stipulated that the period should be six months, a petitioner might resubmit their petition after six months and a day, or if we stipulated that it should be a year, they might resubmit it after a year and a day. You would simply have to go through the whole procedure again.

I wonder whether, by changing only rule 15.5.2, we will end up in the same situation six or 12 months down the line. Because you do not have the ability to close a petition formally, you might end up constantly having to reconsider resubmitted petitions six months and a day or a year and a day later and with the same end result. People will soon become wise to how quickly they can resubmit their petitions. Obviously, such a ban cannot be continued into a new session—we cannot tie the hands of a new committee or Parliament.

I invite you to reconsider the prospect of having the ability formally to close petitions. There are situations where there is just a time lag between a petition being closed and its being resubmitted. You outlined to Mark Ballard a number of ways in which people can easily circumvent the impression that a petition is simply being resubmitted, such as by adding another element to it or asking for a different outcome, which might be totally impractical but which you would be required to consider. You might have come up with only a temporary solution to the problem.

We have the power to close petitions and we do so; in fact, we close more petitions than the previous Public Petitions Committee did.

Before considering them?

No. We never close a petition before considering it; it would be wrong to do so. We want the power to avoid asking the clerks to use up the resources of the committee; we want to avoid having the time of other petitioners taken up because people are continually coming back to us and asking us to reconsider issues. We think that a year is a reasonable time in which circumstances could change. If we thought that circumstances had changed, we would consider the matter again. However, we do not think it appropriate that, just because a petitioner is dissatisfied with the original outcome, they should be able to ask us to start the process again. That can happen at the moment, because we do not have the power to deal with such situations.

We want to get this right, despite some of the murmurings that we have heard. Would it be useful not to specify a time period of six months or a year, but to say, for example—I do not have the form of words—that the committee considered that it had deliberated on the matter in a reasonable timescale? That would avoid recurrences of petitions after six months and a day or a year and a day.

You might have a point. The Public Petitions Committee agreed that a year would be an acceptable timescale and I am not at liberty to change what the committee agreed in its discussions. However, if the Procedures Committee wants to reconsider that issue, I will have to leave it to you. We did not feel that a year was an unreasonable time. The question is not just about our considering the petition; we would ask the petitioner to take the time to think about whether it would be useful to lodge the petition again.

This meeting has been useful in clarifying the position for me. It is clear that the convener of the Public Petitions Committee in no way wants to prevent people from lodging petitions. Let us imagine that a member of the public petitioned the Parliament asking for a bus from Glasgow to Kilsyth. If, after the Parliament had considered that petition, someone lodged a petition asking for a bus from Kilsyth to Glasgow, we would say that that matter had already been considered. The issue is as basic and simple as that. I really do not get the feeling that the Public Petitions Committee or its convener would want to stop people having the right to petition Parliament; they just want to ensure that false hopes are not built up. That is reasonable. Reasonable politicians would want to ensure that people did not have hope that a petition could be opened again when that was clearly unnecessary.

Thanks for that, Cathie. That is exactly what we are trying to say. We just need a bit of protection from those people who want to exploit the current situation, because we have experience of such attempts. We are in no way trying to prevent people from lodging petitions. Given that, as I said in my opening statement, we are going out to the regions to try to encourage a wider range of community groups and individuals to lodge petitions, we need to protect the clerks and ensure that the resources that are available to them are best used.

I thank Michael McMahon and Jim Johnston for coming along; they have helped to clarify the issues.

I draw to colleagues' attention the paper on the admissibility of public petitions. I refer to paragraph 24. We need to consider a number of decisions, on the basis of which we will produce a draft report on any changes to the standing orders that might be required.

We should add a new rule, 15.5.2(d), stating that a petition can be ruled inadmissible if it is in the same or similar terms as a previous petition. I am drawn to Bruce McFee's suggestion that we should not impose a time limit—it should be up to the Public Petitions Committee of the day to decide the point at which a petition becomes readmissible. However, we cannot bind our successor Parliaments, so the measure should apply only to one parliamentary session.

Karen Gillon makes the important point that rule 15.5.2 should be able to be used when a petition is the same as a previous one. It is important to have flexibility—we should say not that petitions must be put aside, but that they can be put aside. Can we tighten up the definition and replace the word "similar" with the words "substantially equivalent", for example, to make it clear that we are referring to petitions that are more or less the same? The word "similar" seems too broad. Moreover, can petitions continue across parliamentary sessions, so that they can be opened in one session and closed in another?

Yes.

In that case, I do not see why there should be—

Because the parliamentary composition will change. If there was a change of Executive—

Perish the thought.

It is highly unlikely.

Given that the minister or something else might change in the subsequent session, the outcome for the petition might be different from what it was in the previous session with a different Executive or committee.

But the Executive can change during a parliamentary session. Coalitions can fall apart unexpectedly.

That might be a material change of situation that would allow the petition to be resubmitted. We are saying that, everything else being equal, if the same or a similar petition was proposed, it would not be reconsidered in that parliamentary session. However, if there was a material change, such as new evidence or a change of Government, it would be up to the committee to accept the petition.

My comments are based on the assumption that, whenever a petitioner wishes to pursue a petition, the decision on it will be taken by the Public Petitions Committee. I want it to be clear that, when the clerk tells a petitioner that their petition is likely to be ruled inadmissible but the petitioner says that they want to pursue the matter, the petition will always go to the committee, not just the clerk and the convener, for determination. The evidence seemed to be that that is what would happen.

Yes. Currently, standing orders state that the committee will determine admissibility, but in practice the clerk discusses the petition with the petitioner and, if the petitioner accepts that the petition is not admissible, the petition is withdrawn and does not go to the committee. If the petitioner does not agree, the petition goes to the committee. One of the suggestions in paragraph 24 is that we amend standing orders to make that clear.

Standing orders should state that the committee makes the decision.

Petitions go to the committee in cases where there is a dispute.

Yes. The petitioner would have to dispute the decision. If the clerk speaks to the petitioner and the petitioner withdraws the petition, the question of admissibility does not arise, because the petitioner has withdrawn their petition. Only when a petition is pursued can it be ruled inadmissible. I want to be clear that the committee makes the ruling.

I do not have the exact form of words, but we should be clear that we are talking about a petition being in the same or similar terms in the same session—I am not getting into Mark Ballard's terminology. That point has to be clear. I will qualify that, because a petition might be in similar terms to a previous one, but the circumstances may have changed dramatically in a short period. Therefore, some other form of words is needed. The present suggestion is that we state that a petition

"in the same or similar terms may not be introduced in the same session".

I suggest that we add that the petition must be unlikely to produce a different outcome from the outcome that has already been produced. Let us say that I submit a petition on the colour of red apples or whatever.

We have had a petition on that.

I am sure that you have.

Let us say that I want X, Y and Z to happen, but the Public Petitions Committee and the Parliament take the view that X, Y and Z will not happen. However, if something changes dramatically after my submission of the petition so that X, Y and Z can happen, the committee must be able to consider a similar petition. That is why we should add something about the petition being unlikely to produce a different outcome or likely to produce a similar outcome. If the Public Petitions Committee believes that a similar petition may produce a different outcome, it should have the ability to consider it. There might be a better way of wording that. Does anyone want to try their hand?

That point was made clearly in the evidence today. To return to my point about a bus, if a person wants a bus to run from A to B and the Parliament has considered that fully and made a decision, a petition about a bus from B to A would not be admissible. However, if somebody wanted a bus from B to A and could demonstrate that 2,000 new houses were to be built, that would be a material difference that would mean that the petition should be considered.

It would be likely to produce a different outcome.

How can we tell that? If the circumstances and the evidence have changed, a similar petition should be considered.

The clerk to the Public Petitions Committee said in evidence that, if there is a material change in circumstance or if new evidence appears, which might include a change of Government—

The petition could be exactly the same, but there may be a material change in circumstances that is not reflected in the petition.

The current rule 15.5.2 states that a petition is inadmissible if

"(b) it contains language which, in the opinion of the Committee, is offensive; or

(c) it requests the Parliament to do anything which, in the opinion of the Committee, the Parliament clearly has no power to do."

I suggest that we add, "(d) it is the same as or similar to a previous petition"—or whatever wording we choose—"unless, in the opinion of the committee, there has been a change in circumstances." That would give flexibility and would deal with Bruce McFee's point.

That is a legitimate approach. We will try to find a form of words that reflects the intent.

I understand the direction in which the committee is trying to go, but I am concerned about some of the procedural practicalities if we build in such a criterion of admissibility. The principal purpose of admissibility criteria is to filter what gets to the committee in the first place, so that only petitions that should get to the committee get there. If we build into the admissibility criteria matters that only the committee can properly judge, we will set up a circular process.

With respect, that is what happens at present, apart from under rule 15.5.2(a).

The Public Petitions Committee wants a system in which its clerk can tell someone that, in essence, their petition is the same as one that has been submitted already and dealt with by the Parliament, so there is no point in pursuing it. At present, the committee has no power to do that and it wants a rule to that effect. However, if the person does not agree with the clerk and thinks that the situation has changed, the rule should not prevent the person from asking for the matter to go to the committee, which would then have to decide whether there has been a material change that merits the matter being considered. That is the rule that we want; I leave the wording to the good judgment of the various clerks and lawyers.

Repeat petitioners are likely to insist that the matter goes to the committee.

May I suggest a form of words, convener? I suggest that we say: "In the opinion of the committee, the petition is the same or similar in nature and contains no significant new information or evidence."

What about circumstances?

The words "information or evidence" would cover circumstances. A change of Executive, for example, is new information.

Run that by me again.

I suggested that we say: "In the opinion of the committee, the petition is the same or similar"—

—"and contains no new circumstances or evidence." That is essentially what you said.

I said "information or evidence", but I am happy to use the word "circumstances".

Can we use that as a working basis? We will have to come back with a draft report and any suggested changes to the standing orders anyway. That will allow the clerks to find out whether what has been suggested is procedurally acceptable.

It would be good to find a better word than "similar".

A word similar to "similar".

That criterion—"in the opinion of the committee"—will mean that the committee will have to take a decision in every case. I am therefore not quite sure how the rule will meet its intended purpose.

Technically, that is the same with the other admissibility criteria.

We would be adding on after (c): "It is the same or similar to a petition previously submitted in the same session and there has been no material change in circumstances."

In the opinion of the committee.

That is added to all the criteria.

We will have a chance to finalise the wording, but we need a clear steer from the clerks on the procedurally correct way of drafting any change to the standing orders. At the end of the day, we have to recommend a change to the standing orders.

Just to clarify for Andrew Mylne, rule 15.5.1 says:

"The Public Petitions Committee shall decide whether a petition is admissible."

At the moment, the committee has to decide on admissibility. We are talking about another admissibility criterion, but the committee has always had the decision on admissibility, not the clerk or the clerk and the convener.

The suggestion is that the additional criteria will allow the clerk to say to the petitioner, "Unless you've got new information or evidence to support the petition, resubmitting it will not get you anywhere, so please withdraw it." That is essentially what we are trying to achieve. We will bring forward a draft report on this item at a future meeting.