Official Report 504KB pdf
Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 (Housing Associations) (PE1539)
Agenda item 3 is consideration of petition PE1539, by Anne Booth, on housing associations coming under the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002. I welcome the members of the public who have joined us in the public gallery. This is the committee’s second consideration of the petition. Attached at annex B of the clerk’s note on the petition is a letter from the Scottish Government in response to correspondence that was issued by the committee, which is attached at annex A. In that letter, the Scottish Government has confirmed that it will formally consult the registered social landlord sector on extending the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 to registered social landlords in 2016, with a view to extending the act in tandem with complementary changes to the Scottish social housing charter.
I invite comments from members.
It seems that the petitioners are making significant headway on their requests. The Scottish Government seems to have accepted the case and that is why it is going to have a consultation on it. I do not know what is required of us here today other than to note that and to welcome the Scottish Government’s action.
There are two options available to the committee. We can agree to close the petition or we can agree to keep it open. I invite members to consider whether they wish the committee to take any further action in relation to the petition.
I would be reluctant to close the petition, because we do not have a definite answer about where this is going. We have seen significant progress from the Government in relation to its initial response on the issue, but we do not have a conclusion. The consultation is not an answer to the petition. The petitioner asked for specific action to be taken. It might be that it will be taken after the consultation. Unfortunately, we do not have that answer yet and I would be reluctant to firmly say that we should take no further action. We should wait for the findings of the Government consultation and come back to the petition then.
Are we likely to get any action from the Government before the election next year? Clearly, there are issues about petitions overlapping election periods. Along with Siobhan McMahon, I would like to see the petition succeed. It is a good petition and, as members know, I am a great fan of the petitions system. Perhaps you could give us some advice, convener, on whether you think that it is likely that there will be some further action on the matter before the election.
I think that you have touched on a key issue. We would not expect the consultation to have concluded this side of the election and therefore the petition would have to be carried over into session 5. We would find that difficult to justify, but I do not wish to pre-empt the decision of the committee.
We have processes in Parliament and I think that it would be a disgrace, frankly, for this Parliament to stop a petition just because a session ends—
There is no—
If you would let me finish, convener—I have not made my point yet. It would mean that the person has not got an answer because of timescales. We have taken the petition to the Government and the Government has had ample opportunity to get back to us. The issue has gone to consultation. That means that because of the Government’s response and its timescales, the petitioner has not got the answer that they require. That would be unfortunate for us to take a decision on.
I think that there are a range of views on the issue. There is no suggestion that the Government has behaved unreasonably as regards the process that has been adhered to to date.
I did not say that. No one is implying that it has behaved unreasonably. I am saying that it would be unfortunate if we decided to end the petition based on timescales—based on parliamentary sessions—rather than on the merits of the petition, because those are two different questions. Do we agree with the merits of a petition? That is one question. Unfortunately, the timescales, as Dave Stewart has pointed out, do not allow us to make any decisions before the end of the session, so should we close the petition because we cannot take it into session 5? Those are two separate questions that we are being asked. They are not the same question.
The issue that we should be aware of as a committee before we take any decision is that it would, of course, be entirely open to the petitioner to introduce a new petition in the next parliamentary session should they so wish, if they felt that the issue had not been dealt with sufficiently through the consultation process. That is certainly an option that would be available to the petitioner.
I was of the understanding that the Government response in ordering a consultation was exactly what the petitioner was seeking, so I am wondering what point there is in leaving the petition open. If the petitioner has achieved what they were seeking, what merit is there in leaving the petition open?
The petition was not about a consultation. It was about adding housing associations to the list of the Scottish public authorities covered by the FOI act; it was not to ask for a consultation on the issue.
If I could just make one further point. I have sympathy with the petitioner’s view, but before the Government acts, it would be normal process and procedure for it to have a consultation to examine the issue thoroughly in order to discover whether there were any unintended consequences and, indeed, to carry out a thorough exploration of the whole issue. That seems only right and proper before a Government of any shade takes any action on the issue.
I think that it would be unreasonable for petitioners to think that they could basically force the Government into taking action without undertaking a consultation. I am really not quite sure what we gain in keeping the petition open. I cannot understand what is gained.
12:15
I will bring in a former convener of the Public Petitions Committee, who might be able to shed some light on these matters.
Thank you, convener. Certainly, my experience over four years was that when we were looking to close a petition, if the petitioner said that they were happy that their objectives had been reached and they were happy for the petitions committee to close the petition, I recommended to the committee that it did so.
You may have raised this, convener—do we have any comments in writing from the petitioner?
I was going to make that very point and ask the clerks whether they could advise us on that. I know that we have the petitioner in the room, but our procedures do not allow us to invite participation from the petitioner this morning. I think that the formal process is that if we want to defer a decision, we can write to the petitioner and ask whether they are content for us to close the petition and then we would be able to make an informed decision.
I recommend that we defer the decision until we get something in writing from the petitioner so that we can make a more informed decision, knowing the petitioner’s view.
That is an entirely reasonable suggestion. I appreciate that Siobhan McMahon is seeking to defend the interests of the petitioner, but it may be that we are going beyond the wishes of the petitioner in this case. We would need to clarify—
You have missed the point completely, convener. That is not what I am doing. I am asking for the process to be followed. The petition asked for one thing; the Government response is entirely different. That is what I was saying to you. Those are two separate things.
I understand your point; I just think that it is entirely reasonable if the committee wants to take a view based on the wishes of the petitioner.
Absolutely. I am not disagreeing with that in the slightest.
I think that we are at cross-purposes then.
Yes, but you have just decided to have another go, so that is fine.
I am not quite sure what point you are making now.
Okay.
Do we agree that we will write to the petitioner and ask for their views on whether to close the petition or to keep it open?
Members indicated agreement.