Public Petitions Committee, 15 Nov 2006

Meeting date: Wednesday, November 15, 2006

Official Report 308KB pdf

---

Proposed Petition

Item 3 is consideration of the admissibility of a proposed petition. Members have before them a draft petition in the name of Aela Boyd and William Boyd in the following terms:

"The petitioner requests that the Scottish Parliament recommends a full judicial inquiry and criminal investigation into the abduction of Aela Boyd and the abuse of both children's and human rights at the hands of various officials within the Scottish Authorities with specific regard to the malicious and oppressive treatment suffered by both parties by the Justices."

The clerks have contacted Mr Boyd to discuss the wording of his proposed petition and have advised him that it appears to breach our criteria for the admissibility of petitions in that

"Petitions may not ask the Committee to adjudicate on personal or commercial interests which should be determined by a court or other tribunal."

The custody of Aela Boyd appears to be a matter for the courts and dialogue between the potential petitioner and Highland Council appears to be continuing. Members will be aware that the rules on admissibility also say:

"The Committee has no remit to intervene in the operational decisions or actions of other public bodies in Scotland".

Mr Boyd has not accepted the advice that the clerks offered and the proposed petition is therefore before us for a decision on its admissibility. I think that the committee has much sympathy for anyone who is in such a situation, but the clerks try to work with petitioners to produce petitions in a manner that allows us to address them. If a potential petitioner refuses to accept the clerks' advice and insists that he will lodge his petition only with his wording, we must make a decision—it is not a nice one, but we must stick by the rules.

I have known Billy Boyd for some time and I know that he has used every tool at his disposal to try to resolve the issue for his daughter's well-being. I sympathise totally with him and I share his concerns, given that I know him quite well. I respect the clerk's attempt to achieve appropriate wording. I presume that Mr Boyd is concerned about diluting the issue. I do not know whether we can find any way to assist him.

I have described what the clerks do. Often, petitioners propose petitions whose wording is inadmissible. The clerks have worked well with most petitioners to find a form of words that allows a petition to be lodged. As members know, once a petition has been lodged, a petitioner has the opportunity to put their case to highlight the general issue that their petition addresses. However, as I have said often enough, we can never consider an individual case. We are not a court of appeal and we cannot judge decisions that other bodies have made.

Unfortunately, Mr Boyd would not allow his proposed petition to be changed and the fact that it would ask us to make a judgment on a decision makes it inadmissible. I know that the clerks worked closely with Mr Boyd to try to allow us to consider the petition, but that has not been possible. The committee is required to determine that the petition is inadmissible.

I can vouch for the fact that all the committee clerks have bent over backwards to help several petitioners from my area with wording. No one could ask for more from our clerks. We have no option but to accept the clerks' advice.

Do members accept that the proposed petition must be ruled inadmissible?

The matter is for the courts, so it is sub judice. That is a powerful reason not to consider it. Our standing orders say that we cannot consider anything that is sub judice.

I take that on board and share the concerns about the matter being sub judice. The problem for Mr Boyd is getting anywhere with the issue. Can any member suggest any way in which the Parliament can assist Billy? I know that that might not be the committee's job, but he has met many barriers over many years. Quite a lot of us are desperate to assist him for his sake and for his daughter's sake.

You have answered your own question. You are an MSP and you know Mr Boyd; perhaps you could offer advice or put him in contact with a local MSP who could look into the situation. The difficulty is that the matter is sub judice, but there is no reason why people cannot approach a local elected member and seek their support. That is about all that we can do to offer assistance. Is that okay?

Members indicated agreement.