Local Government Committee, 14 Dec 1999

Meeting date: Tuesday, December 14, 1999

Official Report 225KB pdf

---

Petition (Bridge of Allan Public Interests Association)

The first item on the agenda is a petition—do any members need to declare an interest in this matter?

I must register my interest as a former member of Stirling District Council and a current member of Stirling Council. I will not take part in the debate.

Thank you, Keith.

As this is the first public petition to come before the committee, members have been given a briefing paper. There are other notes from the clerk, which explain the situation of some councils, such as City of Edinburgh Council and Dumfries and Galloway Council. There are also two letters from David Wilson. The petition asks us to consider how councils, rather than Parliament, deal with petitions. Are there any comments?

I have a general comment. As Parliament has regulated the procedure for dealing with petitions, it might be a good idea for us to consider creating a similar mechanism for councils. Some councils have limited procedures that they operate from time to time, while other councils have no procedure at all. We would be doing a great public service if we could produce or recommend a system to deal with petitions.

The letter from David Wilson included a complaint that time is wasted because there are often campaigns of petitions—several petitions on the same subject. If we had a system in place for dealing with them, the public would be aware that there is an appropriate procedure for presenting petitions. I would hate to be a council official faced with several petitions that must be progressed. The documents that we are considering might lead us towards production of a formalised system for the whole country. I welcome that.

We should follow the suggestion in the document and consult the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and Stirling Council. I assume that the committee does not want to get drawn into the campaign to save the Museum Hall in Bridge of Allan, but, as Gil Paterson said, it is desirable for all councils to have a suitable system for dealing with petitions. We should ask COSLA to discuss the matter with councils. We should not be too prescriptive. As long as there is an agreed system, different councils might take different approaches to it.

If we are to have a democratic process, the importance of the democratic participation that is represented by petitions—many of us have been involved in a petition at one time or another—must be recognised. From Mr Wilson's letter, it appears that Stirling Council completely ignores petitions—that is not a tenable position. Regardless of the outcome of a petition, it should, at least, be registered that a petition was submitted and the opinions in it should be made known.

We should ask COSLA to comment on the matter. It is clear from the evidence before us that there is no standard throughout Scotland and, in the long run, it would be sensible to pursue that. We could ask COSLA for its opinion. It might have more information on how councils deal with petitions; there appear to be marked differences in the ways in which councils deal with petitions and that is unfair.

Does the committee agree?

I should not really participate. However, I would appreciate it, convener, if you would write to Stirling Council to ask how it handles petitions—it is wrong to say that it ignores them.

I am only referring to what is said in Mr Wilson's letter.

I do not think that the committee should do that at the moment. I will ask COSLA to comment on the general principle of the way in which councils should deal with petitions. However, we will let the convener of the Public Petitions Committee, and the petitioner himself, know what we have decided to do. When we get the information back, we shall take matters from there, but I do not see us being able to fit any in-depth discussion of the subject into our programme in the next few months. Do members agree that we should wait for COSLA to come back to us on that?

Members indicated agreement.

We now move to the next item on our agenda—

I am sorry to interrupt, convener. This matter is not on the agenda, but I seek clarification about the locus of the committee regarding business rates. Last week, the Minister for Finance made a statement that I am sure most members of the committee will have heard. In that statement he said:

"Over the next 12 months, Henry McLeish and his team will examine the case for small business rate relief and consider the best way forward."—[Official Report, 8 December 1999; Vol 3, c 1262.]

Does that mean that the committee will no longer have any part in that debate? Will we be the second-tier committee on business rates, or will we still have an input into that? Our deliberations in recent weeks do not seem to have had much impact on what the Minister for Finance has said so far.

I do not see this committee as being second in line for anything.

I certainly hope that we will not be.

We will not be. The minister has made a statement and we will send our report, when it is ready, to Henry McLeish or to Jack McConnell as appropriate. We will listen to what our adviser has to say before reaching conclusions about our position on that matter. When Jack McConnell spoke in Parliament, I did not get the impression that he was pushing us to one side. We have undertaken a piece of work that we will complete and on which we will publish a report with our opinions. Jack and Henry will consider that report as part of their deliberations.

I certainly hope that that will be the case. Have you had a response to the letter that you sent to Jack McConnell?

Not yet. I will chase that up.