Public Petitions Committee, 15 Nov 2006

Meeting date: Wednesday, November 15, 2006

Official Report 308KB pdf

---

Work Programme

The next item is the committee's work programme until dissolution next spring. The clerks have produced a paper that sets out the position in relation to several petitions that are still active and the rate at which new petitions are being received. David McGill will take us through the paper, so that we can understand why it was produced.

Richard Hough and I were thinking about the committee's workload between now and dissolution. We felt that there will come a point beyond which there will probably not be much benefit in the committee looking at any more new petitions. At the same time, we recognised that there are about 160 current petitions that are still open, on which the committee still has work to do. We felt that there is probably benefit to be gained from the committee, before dissolution, focusing on the petitions that are still outstanding, rather than accumulating more. That will reduce the amount of work that we hand over to the session 3 committee.

Taking everything into account, we have suggested that the date beyond which the committee might consider not looking at any new petitions is the end of January. We felt that no reasonable petitioner would be upset at being told in February that their petition will not be looked at for a couple of months because the Parliament is about to be dissolved. In coming to that recommendation, we also felt that it is worth emphasising that petitions do not fall at dissolution as bills do. We also have the e-petitions system, which will enable petitioners either to maintain or to build up momentum behind their issue in the last few weeks of the current session and then capitalise on that in the next session.

I hope that the committee's paper is self-explanatory, but I am happy to take members' comments or suggestions.

Do members have any questions for David McGill?

I think that what has been suggested is absolutely right. It is incumbent on us to reduce the backlog of work for our successor committee, if we possibly can. I agree with the cut-off date that has been chosen; in fact, I might have suggested an earlier date with a view to reducing the backlog further. Backlogs are building up all over. I am happy to go with the recommendation.

Are members happy to accept the recommendation in the paper and to work on that basis?

Members indicated agreement.