Marriage (PE1413)
Good morning and welcome to the Equal Opportunities Committee’s 25th meeting in 2012. I remind everyone to set their electronic devices to flight mode or switch them off.
The petition is either very timely or untimely. In my view, it is untimely and unhelpful, and I find some of the content offensive. It contains a lot of nonsense and a large number of loaded comments. As the convener rightly says, it is likely that this committee will deal with the proposed legislation. With that in mind, I suggest that we disregard this matter and move on.
Does anyone else have a comment?
Are the dates in paragraph 2 of the clerk’s paper correct? It says:
It should be 2012, yes.
Okay.
My view is that we should consider the petition when we are considering the bill. It is widely expected that the bill will come to this committee, so there is no point in doing anything with the petition just now.
I agree. We do not know what the Government is proposing, so I do not think that the petition is relevant at this time.
Siobhan McMahon is entirely correct, convener. It was inappropriate to say “disregard”. Clearly, I have had due regard to the petition. I have read it thoroughly and I found the content offensive. What I really mean is that, taking into account future events, we should take no action on the petition. Whatever the appropriate term is that we should use, I am suggesting that we should take no action on the petition. I am not suggesting that we should hold it over and consider it alongside the legislation. Every day our email in-boxes are filling up with information and suggestions from the public, and of course we will have regard to them. I accept that my use of that word was inappropriate. I am suggesting that we take no action, or whatever the appropriate committee term is.
I agree that the petition is essentially redundant in the true sense of the word. It does not serve a use because it was intended to raise an issue before the Parliament that has been raised and will be considered through the formal processes. Ultimately, and assuming that the proposed bill comes to the committee, we will come to a conclusion on its general principles, which will mean the Parliament going one way or the other on the issue that the petition raises.
My view is that—regardless of how it is worded or its tone—we hold over the petition and consider it as part of our evidence gathering. I suspect that we will receive a number of submissions if the bill comes to the committee for consideration, which I am sure that it will. We must look at all the evidence that is put before us, give due regard to submissions from both sides of the argument and take a balanced view.
The petition should be held over; it should not be closed at this stage. Regardless of my opinions about, for example, the language, there are things about it that I would want to discuss. The petition is not redundant; we have just not reached the stage at which we are discussing the bill. However, given that the Government is drafting the bill—we are not involved in the drafting of legislation—I suggest that we make it aware of the petition. A significant number of people have signed the petition, so it would be right to pass the petition on to the Government at this stage to include in its consultation.
The Government published the Marriage and Civil Partnership (Scotland) Bill yesterday. What strikes me is that the petition has received 2,500 signatures. I do not know whether Amy King, the petitioner, represents an organisation or just herself, but that is quite an impressive number. In principle—leaving aside the subject—just to knock back a petition is not a particularly good thing. It looks better if we leave it open as has been suggested and consider it alongside the evidence received on the bill.
For the avoidance of doubt, the Justice Committee has received a number of petitions that we have taken no action on. That does not mean that every member did not read them, take on board what was said and have due regard to them in deliberations. That is where I was coming from.
Thank you for that.
I am suggesting that we take no further action, in so far as we know that the bill was published yesterday and that, at some point, we will all have an opportunity to input on it, and I am sure that we will all have regard to all the submissions that have been made to us, including this one.
When you say disregard, what you mean is—
Having corrected myself for using that phrase—the phrase that you keep reusing, convener—what I am saying is that we take no action, or whatever the appropriate phrase is, on this petition, because we will be taking further action on the subject matter.
I favour action 1.
Which action is that?
It is to take the petition and regard it as evidence when the bill is submitted to us.
Option 1 is to leave the petition open and to consider it at a later point; option 2 is to pass it on to the Government. We could do both those things.
My preference is to raise the petition with the Government, which is a fair suggestion, and then take no further action, given that we will consider it implicitly during the bill scrutiny process, but at this stage we are splitting hairs.
I am happy to split hairs with Marco Biagi on that issue.
We need to make a decision on this.
By all means, give it to the Government if you like. I would support that.
I think that there is agreement on giving it the Government, at least. Is that fair to say?
Is there agreement on that?
We agree to pass the petition to the Government.
I formally propose that the committee take no further action on the petition.
We have a proposal. Do we have agreement on it?
No. I would like the petition to be left open so that we could at least write back to the person who submitted it.
Do we agree to that?
No. I am more with John Finnie on this. The purpose of a public petition is to raise an issue with the Parliament for its scrutiny. This issue is already before the Parliament for its scrutiny, therefore the petition serves no use on its own. The petitioner will have multiple opportunities to make those points again and no doubt will do that. The fact of the petition and the claims that have been made in it will be considered as part of the evidence.
We have a petition before us. In the interests of equity and fairness we are suggesting that it is given due consideration along with other evidence when we scrutinise the bill. I see that as a fair and equitable solution, because the petition has a significant number of signatures and it represents a point of view. I disregard my personal opinion on the matter. I believe that the petition should remain open, but be considered only as part of the evidence when we scrutinise the bill.
Clearly we are not going to reach agreement. We have two options: we leave the petition open or we close it.
I am willing to bow to the prevailing opinions, even though I do not necessarily agree with the interpretation.
Who is in favour of leaving it open?
It is important that we have consensus on this. If the prevailing view is that we leave it open, I am happy to go with that.
Are we happy that we have decided to leave the petition open?
We are content.
We are content—thank you. The petition will remain open for further consideration.
Previous
Attendance