Official Report 155KB pdf
Petitions 31, 34 and 35 from Helen Mackenzie, Peter Norris and Marion Reynolds call on the Scottish Parliament to conduct a review of its obligations under international law regarding the presence of Trident nuclear weapons at Faslane nuclear submarine base, which are under Scots legal jurisdiction.
Do we have to declare an interest if we are members of the all-party Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament group?
I hope not, because I am a member of the all-party CND group. [Laughter.] However, if we do, I declare it now.
Me too. Now that that is out of the way, I accept what you were saying. I have spoken to members of the Justice and Home Affairs Committee and they feel that these petitions would be ideal for them to discuss. They said—and Christine Grahame may want to come in on this—that the Minister for Justice may also want to discuss them. If the Justice and Home Affairs Committee or the minister is to look at this, I wonder whether it could be pointed out that some members' motions relate to this matter and that it would be useful if the committee or the minister could report back to us and not just to the petitioners.
As my name has been used—though not in vain—I should say that the only problem that I have with this going to the Justice and Home Affairs Committee is that, in that committee, we are so up to our necks in work that we may not be able to give a quick response. The situation may improve if we move to having two meetings a week.
For the record, it has not yet been agreed that the Justice and Home Affairs Committee will meet twice a week—and I will have something to say about that when it comes to be discussed.
First, I declare that I am not a member of the CND group, but I am a member of the Justice and Home Affairs Committee along with Pauline McNeill and Christine Grahame.
I feel that we should ask the Lord Advocate what he intends to do. It is all very well to say that he is actively considering making a reference, but he has had quite a while to do so.
I can live with that, convener—it is a fair question to ask.
I am glad that I have said something with which you can live, Phil.
It is nice to see Phil, for once, agreeing with CND.
Has Christine got new initials?
Two courses of action have been suggested. First, we write to the Lord Advocate, asking him for information on when he will reach a decision and whether he will appeal the sheriff's decision. Secondly, we also refer the petitions to the Minister for Justice, asking for the Scottish Executive's view; depending on what that view is, we reconsider what we will do with the petitions. The Minister for Justice will come back to us so that we can decide whether we refer them to the Justice and Home Affairs Committee or deal with it in some other way.
We should advise the minister that we have written to the Lord Advocate.
Yes. It is not for the Minister for Justice to say whether the Crown will appeal.
If we do that we will put the Minister for Justice in a difficult position. If we make contact with the Lord Advocate and ask him a perfectly reasonable question, as Christine Grahame suggested, we should wait until we have an answer before deciding what to do. It would be wrong to take parallel action, particularly when the Lord Advocate and the Minister for Justice may be operating separately. I accept Christine's point, but I would rather pursue half the proposal.
May I clarify what I meant, as I was completely misunderstood? We should tell the Minister for Justice that we have written to the Lord Advocate simply as a matter of courtesy, not as a threat.
You are asking for his opinion.
No, I am not.
Try to speak through the chair.
It makes sense that we take both actions in tandem. It is the Minister for Justice's job to reply either to us or to the petitioners, and I do not see any harm in asking him, and the Lord Advocate, to do so. That is part and parcel of Parliament. I second what John McAllion said.
I get the feeling that the majority view is that we write to the Lord Advocate and the Minister for Justice asking for the Scottish Executive's position, and that we hold this matter over until we have replies from both. We have never gone to a formal vote, Phil, and I think that you would lose anyway. Are we agreed on that course of action?
Can we place a time limit on a response?
We can ask for a response as soon as possible, but we cannot demand that the Lord Advocate makes a decision within a specific time scale. We can stress that we want this matter to be dealt with and that we would appreciate a reply within a reasonable amount of time. Are we agreed?
The next petition, PE32, comes from Gavin Cleland and is supported by the Scottish Trades Union Congress. It calls for the prosecution of the Occidental oil company for its part in the Piper Alpha disaster. In particular, the petitioners are asking the Scottish Parliament to declare that the Lord Advocate should initiate a prosecution against Occidental for the alleged negligence that led to the disaster. It also asks the Parliament to resolve to seek a change in the law, if it is required, to enable the Lord Advocate to proceed with such a prosecution.
I am beginning to think that I am becoming a pen pal of the Lord Advocate. I suggest that we write to the Lord Advocate, asking him whether he intends to initiate a prosecution against Occidental and, if not, why not.
That is one course of action.
I echo that suggestion. This issue has been around for a long time. It is a shame that we cannot discuss various aspects of the matter. I do not see any point in sending the petition to Westminster. People have been doing that for nearly 10 years and have got nowhere. They have come to us because some action might be taken.
We have discussed the role of this committee many times when we have come across difficulties. I thought that it was not for us to decide whether we support a petition or not, but to decide whether the petition should be referred on. This petition does not fall naturally under the remit of any committee, although if it came under any, it would be that of the Justice and Home Affairs Committee, which deals with matters of criminal law. I am not against sending a copy of the petition to the Lord Advocate, but we must be careful about what we do. We cannot pick something out from a petition and say that we want that point to be addressed. I propose that we write to the Lord Advocate with a copy of the petition asking him to comment on the petitioners' request.
This committee does not dispose of petitions. It recommends that a petition be dealt with by whatever authority—a committee, a minister, the Lord Advocate or whatever. It has been the committee's practice in the past to indicate its support for certain petitions by asking committees or ministers to pursue requests with some enthusiasm. We should write to the Lord Advocate, as suggested, asking for his views. We can then reconsider the petition, based on the reply that we receive, to see whether there is something that we can do at that stage to dispose of the petition properly.
Perhaps I can rephrase that. We should ask the Lord Advocate to consider the terms of the petition. If he forms the view that he will not prosecute, it would be helpful for him to indicate why not. We can soften that—it does not have to be put as bluntly as that—but we need some guidance. We do not want simply to hear that he does not intend to prosecute. It is part of the Parliament's role to be open. People want to know why crimes are not prosecuted. There may be very good reasons why they are not, so that is not a trick or a hostile question.
It is perfectly in order for us to write to the Lord Advocate with a copy of the petition to ask him to consider the petition's terms and to indicate the position of the Crown Office on prosecuting Occidental. On the basis of that information, we will be able to decide the best thing to do.
We all have views on any petition and on any matter, but as professionals we need to take all the aspects on board. People have been trying to get information on this issue for 10 years but have not been able to. We are taking on board only the clerk's advice, which is that it would be within the Parliament's powers to do what you suggest. I see no harm in doing that.
I think that we have agreement. We are in danger of wandering into discussion of the details and we do not want to get into trouble.
I have a point to make.
It is not about the detail, is it?
No. I fully back Christine's proposal. However, time and again we ask the Crown Office to tell us why prosecutions are not taken forward and time and again the Lord Advocate refuses point blank to give that information. I am totally behind the idea of asking him about his intentions, but—with respect—I am sceptical about our getting any reasons from him.
I have been involved in a number of cases where the Crown Office has refused point blank to give reasons for a decision. Nevertheless, the Lord Advocate may write to tell us what the decision is. That would be useful information for the committee. Is that course of action agreed?
Petition 33 is from Mr Stuart Crawford and calls for the clearance of litter and rubbish from roadsides and other public areas. In particular, it asks for the implementation of the "adopt a highway" scheme, which is currently used by some states in the USA. The scheme involves local community groups and voluntary bodies adopting a stretch of roadside and undertaking to tidy it up regularly. It is probably more difficult to implement such a scheme in Scotland than in the USA, and not just for cultural reasons. Here there is a split between responsibility for trunk roads and responsibility for non-trunk roads. However, I suggest that we pass the petition to the Transport and the Environment Committee for further consideration.
That seems a sensible way forward.
For efficacy's sake, it might be worth sending it to the Minister for Transport and the Environment before we send it to the Transport and the Environment Committee, to ascertain whether any thought has already been given to this proposal. That is sometimes a quicker way of doing things.
It is for the Transport and the Environment Committee to decide how to proceed. This issue may involve the Local Government Committee as well. I am not greatly fussed, but I would be happier if we let the Transport and the Environment Committee decide.
I am happy to go along with that.
The next petition, PE36, is from the Dundee Royal Neurosurgical Unit Fund. Perhaps I should declare an interest—not only am I the local MP but I support the campaign. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to conduct a debate on the proposed closure of the neurosurgical unit at Ninewells Hospital in Dundee. At the moment, there is no proposal for closure, but the acute services review that is reporting next week may include such a proposal. The suggestion is that we pass this petition to the Health and Community Care Committee for further consideration.
Given that the petitioners want the Parliament to debate this issue, perhaps the petition should be e-mailed to all members, with the suggestion that someone lodge a member's motion, which I would expect to get all-party support. In that way, there would almost certainly be a debate, which would meet the petitioners' requirements.
I have already lodged a member's motion. If members are anxious to sign it, they can do so.
Phil Gallie is absolutely correct. It is not for the Health and Community Care Committee to conduct a debate, as it has no power to do that. The correct forum for a debate of this kind is members' business, and I do not see any difficulty in getting people to sign up to a motion. We can refer the petition to the Health and Community Care Committee to do with it as it wishes, but we need to be clear that only members can initiate a debate.
That is a fair point. However, the committee can consider how such a debate may be progressed, because health comes within its remit. Perhaps it could reply to the petitioners along those lines.
Are we in a position to suggest to the Parliamentary Bureau that we have received a petition on this matter and that it should take that into account when considering whether John McAllion's member's motion should be debated?
Clearly, this petition should be referred to the Health and Community Care Committee because it falls within that committee's remit. However, some of the petitions that we will be considering later raise the issue of whether this committee ought to be recommending debates on particular matters in Parliament. We need further guidance on that, because we cannot say that there should be a debate in Parliament on every petition that we receive. The bureau would have something to say about that, as it would take up all Parliament's time.
It would also bypass the other methods of arranging members' debates. That, again, is a matter for negotiation. Referring the petition to the Health and Community Care Committee would give it more momentum.
That is agreed.
I endorse what you have said, convener.
Are we agreed that we will write to the petitioner in the terms suggested and refer the petition to the Local Government Committee, asking whether it wishes to encourage local authorities to support such schemes?
The next petition, PE38, is from Glen Oaks Tenant and Resident Association, which calls on the Parliament to request Scottish Homes to take a number of steps in relation to the organisation and improvement of tenants and residents organisations. The petition arises from the Scottish Executive's green paper "Investing in Modernisation—An Agenda For Scotland's Housing". We know that, next year, a housing bill will be introduced in the Scottish Parliament, which will be aimed at enhancing tenants' rights, although it may not contain the specific detail that is requested in the petition. In the circumstances, we should ask the Social Inclusion, Housing and Voluntary Sector Committee to consider the petition, to respond to it and to take it into account when it examines the housing bill.
I agree with that suggestion. It might also be useful if the petitioners were encouraged to contact the Justice and Home Affairs Committee when the bill comes before that committee. Sometimes so many submissions come in that they can, for the best reasons, get lost.
Perhaps when we refer the petition to the Social Inclusion, Housing and Voluntary Sector Committee, we can ask it to liaise with the Justice and Home Affairs Committee.
Yes, in case parties raise issues that the Justice and Home Affairs Committee might want to consider when it examines the housing bill.
We should draw that to the attention of the Social Inclusion, Housing and Voluntary Sector Committee.
Is it in order for this committee to copy a petition to the local MSP?
Yes. Where is Glen Oaks?
It is in Glasgow Pollok.
I see no problem with that. Are members agreed?
On a point of information, surely these petitions, once submitted, are in the public domain.
That is correct—anyone can access these petitions.
Would it fall within the remit of the Local Government Committee?
We can ask the Transport and the Environment Committee to consult the Local Government Committee about this petition.
Local government would deal with mandatory fixed penalties, if such penalties were ever imposed.
The clerk will check with the clerks of the Local Government Committee and the Transport and the Environment Committee to establish to which committee this petition should be referred. Is that agreed?
Extra penalties should be imposed for those who litter crisp bags.
The next petition, PE40, is from the World Development Movement, which calls on the Scottish Parliament to debate the implications of the ministerial meeting of the World Trade Organisation—the petitioners refer to the recent, unsuccessful meeting of the WTO in Seattle. International trade and foreign affairs are reserved matters, but issues such as the health service, public-private partnerships, education, local government, transport and housing are all affected by WTO decisions. We should write to the petitioners to explain that international trade and foreign affairs are reserved areas and that we cannot act on the petition—the meeting in Seattle is already past, in any case.
That is a key point. This committee receives calls for the Parliament to debate issues, but there is no provision that allows the committee to take such calls further. That is a matter for the Parliamentary Bureau.
Could I have some information? I do not have the standing orders before me, but I do not think that the standing orders pertaining to this committee allow us to call for debates. We would have to seek change in the Parliament's standing orders.
On your second point, Christine, that is mentioned on the website. It has a full explanation of the limitation of the power of this committee in calling for and trying to arrange debates.
And change the standing orders—the parliamentary rules about the remit and operation of committees—of the Parliament if necessary?
It is quite right that, under the rules, we have no rights. However, if the will were there, I do not see why we could not ask to make a direct input to the Parliamentary Bureau. It is a mechanical issue that we need to sort out.
We could perhaps read from the standing orders about the powers that we have. Rule 15.6.2 states:
So initiating a debate could come under
It is open to us to raise the question with the Parliamentary Bureau. Let us agree the criteria. If this committee feels that it is justified, we could recommend that a debate be held in the chamber. I am not suggesting that every petition warrants that, but let us agree what the criteria for having debates on petitions might be between this committee and the Parliamentary Bureau. If a petition has a sufficient number of signatures, we could certainly say that it should be debated, and that this committee recommends to the bureau that it is debated. We should correspond with the bureau to clarify that situation.
Could I therefore ask that, once you have had your correspondence, convener, the committee has a debate to formulate its criteria? If necessary, we could then seek a change in the rules. As was correctly pointed out earlier, this is an embryonic committee. We want the embryo to grow to be a big, strong baby, and our suggestion will let it become that.
Absolutely. It has been suggested to me by the clerk that he prepare a paper for the next meeting, and that we pursue it then.
As I was saying earlier, I do not think that we really need to recommend a petition in some cases. If we pass it to the Parliamentary Bureau, it can see the motions that have already been submitted and can take a decision. If we feel strongly about it, okay: we make a recommendation. I cannot see anything anywhere that stops us simply passing on a petition to the bureau.
Phil is right but, as Christine Grahame said earlier, we will need some criteria at some stage. Otherwise, we will get bombarded with petitions to deal with.
Okay, but it is agreed that the clerk in consultation with the Parliamentary Bureau will prepare a paper for the next meeting at which we can discuss this further.
I am happy with that, but I want to point out that we do not have the power to declare anything. The petition says:
However, it is important for the Social Inclusion, Housing and Voluntary Sector Committee to recognise that this view exists among tenants organisations. We can ask that committee to reply to the petitioners, while keeping us informed, on Pauline McNeill's specific point and to say that, although the committee may not have the power to declare a moratorium, it will take on board the view of tenants.
Pauline pointed out that the petition calls on this committee to declare a moratorium. That is just the wording of such petitions—the group is not asking us, no matter what our personal views are, to declare a moratorium. It is up to us to decide to which committee we send the petition. You are right, convener, that it has to go to the Social Inclusion, Housing and Voluntary Sector Committee, because it has to know how people feel about housing stock transfer. It is our job to sift through petitions and submit them to the most appropriate committee.
It is agreed to refer petition 41 to the Social Inclusion, Housing and Voluntary Sector Committee.
That seems reasonable.
Is that recommendation agreed?
Petition 43, too, is from Mr Hutchens. It calls on the Parliament
I nodded agreement about petition 42, but I wonder whether petitions 42 and 43 should be referred first to the Minister for Children and Education to say how the matters covered by these petitions are addressed in education policy. There may be something in education policy of which we are unaware.
Would that not be for the committees dealing with the petitions to ask about?
Committees may have to remit petitions that we send them to the minister because they do not know what the position is. In certain cases, where matters of policy are involved, it might be quicker to send petitions to the minister. If the minister says nothing, the petitions can go to the committees.
It is perfectly reasonable for us to go through the minister before we send a petition to any committee, and then decide what to do on the basis of the minister's reply.
Does anyone else feel that that is sometimes more efficient?
We can go down either road, but we cannot do both. Should we send these petitions to the minister or to the committees?
I think that they should go to the committees.
I am easy on this, but I would like a reason for sending these petitions to the minister.
We should know whether there are ways in which human rights education is incorporated into Scottish education, and whether steps have been taken on Manifesto 2000. There may be nothing on that in education policy, in which case a simple answer to that effect can be given. If the petitions are referred to the committees, the committees will have to ask the minister.
Would it go to both the committees and the minister? Could one not say that, in every case, the petition should go to the minister?
Not in every case. In this case the matter may already be addressed in the education programme. I am not making a big issue of it.
I am glad that Christine has raised the matter—she is right. In this case, it should go to the minister. It seems pointless to lumber the Education, Culture and Sport Committee with this if something is already under way. We can revisit the petition depending on the minister's response.
We are going to pass the petition on the minister, for information. Once we have that information we can decide whether to send it on to the committees.
We would be doing the work that would otherwise be undertaken by the committee. Ultimately, it is up to us to decide what happens to the petition.
If the minister says that there are no plans for this matter and nothing is under way, could he pass it on to the committee? That would be a more efficient way of doing it.
I am not happy for ministers to be dealing with petitions; the committee must deal with petitions. We will send both of Mr Hutchens's petitions to the minister and wait for his response. Is that agreed?
Another suggestion was that we would refer it to the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee.
That was the same issue.
I raised it again after having seen the second petition.
Is that agreed?
Petition 44 is from Mr Archie MacAlister, calling on the Parliament to reconsider section 17 of the Abolition of Feudal Tenure etc (Scotland) Bill. The bill comes before the Parliament this week. I suggest that we pass the petition on to the Justice and Home Affairs Committee as part of its consideration of the bill. Is that agreed?
Yes.
The final petition, PE45, is from Mr P Ferguson, asking the Parliament to hold an independent inquiry into hepatitis C and other infections of people with haemophilia. This is a matter on which groups have been lobbying MSPs and the Minister for Health. The minister was considering some form of internal inquiry, but the petitioner is very anxious to have an independent inquiry. I know that several members have signed a motion in support of such an inquiry. I suggest that we refer the petition to the Health and Community Care Committee. Is that agreed?
Yes.
Next
Progress