Official Report 112KB pdf
We need to agree the final text of the guidance document on public petitions and take a decision on the venue for the press launch on Tuesday 23 November. The legal team has suggested several amendments. Although most are minor and unlikely to cause controversy, we should go through them.
I would like to go back to section 2.
I thought that we had agreed section 2.
Yes we had, but I have thought about it again and on reading the list of who may petition the Parliament it seems that virtually everyone and their auntie can send in petitions. That is as it should be and I have no argument with it. The guidance suggests later that a petition may relate only to Scottish Executive business, but a petition might ask the Scottish Executive to put pressure on Westminster regarding a reserved matter. I also wonder whether there should be any restriction regarding the source of the petition—should the petition come from within Scotland and have a Scottish contact address? Could somebody down in Kent or Sussex petition the Scottish Parliament?
As far as I know, they could. This is a devolved Parliament and it was the committee's intention that anyone could petition it—not only to act within its devolved powers, but to ask it to take a view on non-devolved matters. The Parliament has the power to pass comment on non-devolved matters.
That is fine. What about the source of petitions—can we accept a petition from Sussex?
We can accept a petition from anywhere.
Is that in line with what the committee wants? I have no objections to that.
We have accepted a petition from somebody in Canada who was pursuing the right to titles in Scotland. Anyone can petition the Scottish Parliament
I would like to check back on the media and the newspapers because I am sure that the Sunday Post—maybe I am one of the few who still read it—carried quite a scathing article about this committee.
Did it?
The article mentioned that this committee will not accept a petition from an individual. I am almost certain that it said that, but it should be checked.
I was not aware of that.
It was quite a good article but it said that this committee would not accept a petition from an individual.
That has never been the case—this committee has always accepted petitions from individuals.
When I read that article I said to myself that it could not be right.
We will check that out.
I seem to recall that we rejected one petition from an individual and when we accepted a second petition from that individual we were criticised for that.
We rejected it because we could not read it. We gave the petitioner guidelines to help him submit a better petition.
Those words are what the legal people recommend based on the fact that the wording is clear—they are not trying to narrow down the remit or to restrict it. The words are clearer and easier for ordinary people to understand. We have petitions about Trident that will be on our next agenda—such petitions will not be rejected because they relate to devolved powers.
Can we be assured that that is the case?
We have the power to pass comment on such issues as Trident.
That is fine—I merely wanted that assurance.
I will go through the recommended amendments. Would any member like to say anything about the first page?
No.
Do members agree to the wording of paragraph 5?
Are we agreed on paragraph 6, which is a new sentence relating to the return of petitions to petitioners for clarification when that is appropriate?
Are we agreed on paragraphs 7 to 12?
Paragraph 13 has been relocated. The clerk has just told me that it is not about admissibility; it is just guidance on how to petition the Parliament, so it should be at this point in the document rather than anywhere else.
In annexe A you will find the preferred format for public petitions to be submitted to the Scottish Parliament. Are there any points on that? You have also been issued with a copy of the electronic form for anyone who wants to submit a petition by e-mail.
That would be helpful for me—just press a button and send.
If anything occurs to members of the committee and they want an amendment of any kind to this document, tell Steve Farrell, the clerk. We will obviously accommodate it.
Convener, this is probably just old age making me forget, but I had a feeling that there was something that said that electronic signatures were not acceptable on petitions. Does that not suggest that e-mails are not acceptable and that there has to be a proper signature?
As I remember, we took out the bit about signatures.
When people receive an e-mail version of the form, they are prompted to print out a hard copy that they then send in with all the supplementary material and signatures. We do not want those to be sent to us by e-mail or via the internet. It is in the best interests of the petitioners and this committee to do it that way.
Okay, so old age has not got to me yet.
What Steve has said raises an interesting point. Today or yesterday, there was something in the news about, I think, the Prime Minister, raising a point about the validation of e-commerce and signatures coming through the electronic mail. I would not want us to be flying in two different directions. It was suggested that people should be able to purchase goods via e-mail to help to develop e-commerce, and that there was therefore a need to be able to validate signatures over the internet. Does that have any implications for us?
It is something that we will continually keep under consideration.
I would not want us to fall foul of something.
I think that we agreed at an earlier meeting that we did not need a signature to accompany an e-mail.
Paragraph 18 says, in effect, that once you have sent in the petition in e-mail form, signatures then have to be sent in by post, so that we know that they are valid.
Steve has just informed me that there will be a meeting in the next few weeks to talk about technical developments, so we can have a report from that at a future meeting of the committee.
That is fine.
Is the guidance that we have had acceptable? Do members agree with the wording of the document?
Copies of what the document will look like have also been circulated.
It is looking good. My compliments to the chef.
We have the small throwaway version and the main guidance. Are there any comments?
It is fine.
Are both texts agreed to?
The launch will be on 23 November and the media people have suggested that there should be a photo call and a press release with quotes from me and as many other members of the committee as want to be quoted. They have suggested to the clerk that I alone should attend—that is their suggestion, not mine. They think that nobody would turn up at a press conference here, with the whole committee, but that people would turn up if it were held in the mail room of the Parliament with post bags and stuff. What do members think?
I do not mind that. I am quite relaxed about it.
Me too.
I would quite like to be at the launch. Everyone from the committee should be there, because it is a first. I think this is a great committee, and it would be good if the people we are reaching out to are able to recognise who is on the committee.
No politician I have ever known has been shy about a photo call.
Are we happy that all members of the committee should attend the photo call? And should it be in the mail room, or would you prefer somewhere else?
It is a good idea to hold it in the mail room. That would get the message over.
Phil and I are just small—we can sit up on the counter.
The media people have said that they will apportion comments—not that politicians ever need people to make up comments for them. However, if anyone wants to make a particular comment, get in touch with Steve and he will get in touch with the media people to ensure that it is included.
Previous
ProgressNext
Convener's Report