Skip to main content

Language: English / Gàidhlig

Loading…
Chamber and committees

Public Petitions Committee, 14 Jan 2003

Meeting date: Tuesday, January 14, 2003


Contents


Inadmissible Petitions


Thornwood Community Park (IP36)

The Convener:

The next agenda item is inadmissible petitions. The first is from Mr David Polfreman on behalf of Friends of Thornwood, calling for the Parliament to hold a public inquiry into plans approved by Glasgow City Council to build luxury flats and a car park on a large part of Thornwood community park in Partick, Glasgow. The issues and actions that are called for in the petition are clearly related to a specific planning application. It would, of course, be inappropriate for the Parliament to intervene in such an individual planning application or to try to interfere in the decisions of a local authority. On that basis, it is recommended that the committee should agree that the petition is inadmissible.

However, we could suggest to the petitioners that they might wish to consider pursuing the matter further with Glasgow City Council or to submit a complaint to the Scottish public services ombudsman if there is any evidence of maladministration on the part of the local authority. Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.


House of Lords (Jurisdiction) (IP37)

The Convener:

The second of the two inadmissible petitions before us this week is from Mr Joseph Rowan, who is calling for the Scottish Parliament to annul the House of Lords' jurisdiction over Scottish matters, which will allow the Court of Session to become the supreme civil court in Scotland. The petitioner believes that the Court of Session should be the highest civil court in Scotland, and is therefore looking for the removal of the right of appeal to the House of Lords regarding civil matters.

The Parliament's legal office has confirmed that the responsibility for any changes to the respective functions of the House of Lords or the Court of Session is reserved to the UK Parliament and is therefore outwith the competence of the Scottish Parliament. On that basis, it is recommended that the committee should agree that the petition is inadmissible. The committee may wish to suggest to the petitioner that he could pursue the matter further with the relevant UK Government minister, perhaps via his local member of Parliament. Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

That concludes today's business—thankfully. Is there any other competent business?

Yes. I suspect that this information might be contained in the Parliament's annual report, but I would like to know how many petitions that have come in are still in limbo somewhere along the line.

There are 159 petitions in the system that have not been concluded—101 with us and 58 with other committees of the Parliament.

How do reports on petitions normally pan out? We have reports here, but none of them is concluded as yet.

The Convener:

All committees have been asked, if possible, to conclude as many petitions as they can before the end of March and the dissolution of this Parliament. If petitions are not concluded, they will be continued into the next Parliament and dealt with by the next Public Petitions Committee—they will be on the new committee's agenda when it convenes after the election.

Phil Gallie:

I gave Steve Farrell notice of this point, but I raised a question with him about PE417 a week or two ago. He kindly produced a list of all the actions that had been taken on it. The number of actions is horrendous, but we have still not concluded it.

The Convener:

The full paper that sets out the position on every petition is available to any member who wants it, but it is a bulky document and it would be difficult to circulate it to every member at every meeting. However, if members want to see it they should consult Steve Farrell, and they will be able to check on any petition at any stage in the Parliament.

Okay, thank you.

I thank members for their attendance. That concludes the meeting.

Meeting closed at 12:41.