Public Petitions (Procedure)
We move swiftly on to item four on the agenda. I refer members to the paper that outlines a possible new approach to dealing with public petitions. As the paper indicates, we are having to cope with a large number of petitions that have been referred to us. Out of 36 petitions that have been referred to us for action, 26 are still outstanding and have not been concluded. I should also tell the committee that more petitions have been referred to this committee than to any other committee in the Parliament.
If we do not take action, the management of petitions will become increasingly burdensome. The situation also becomes difficult for the petitioners, who sometimes have to wait a very long time for our response. We should be able to provide a clearer and speedier response to petitioners, particularly in cases where other committees have been asked for their views. Furthermore, if we are going to deal with petitions speedily and responsibly, we might have to increase the number of our meetings.
A similar paper has been circulated to the Local Government Committee and the Health and Community Care Committee, both of which have approved the approach that is outlined—other committees are finding it increasingly difficult to deal with petitions under the current system.
In a sense, I am in the committee's hands. I want to hear members' views on the contents of the paper, which outlines a number of steps that we could take. For example, we could comment on our particular problems with the current position; we could agree to take no further action on individual cases that have been subject to legal or court proceedings, industrial tribunals or other statutory processes and procedures; we could note the possible alternative procedure for consideration; or we could adopt the new procedure, which is my preference.
It is a bit worrying that committees are adopting new procedures without discussing them at the conveners liaison group or through the Procedures Committee. Although I have had no time to research the matter since I received the paper, it seems that the whole basis of dealing with petitions is to open up a dialogue with people and supply them with answers.
I am uneasy about accepting a petition and leaving it in limbo, which is effectively what would happen if the petition were left for a member to raise. That might mean anything from enthusiastic members raising all petitions—petitioners will not be slow to work out the situation—to no petitions being raised if members take a determined and united view. That is probably less likely to happen.
The best way to manage the situation is, first, for the Public Petitions Committee to refer on fewer petitions. I recently raised a point about a petition that concerns reserved matters. Helen Eadie explained the situation, but that case still raises a broader issue for the Public Petitions Committee.
Secondly, the committee holds the situation in its own hands. We must put our work load first and foremost. We must say that we will not take on major inquiries if we have not already agreed to do so and that we can accept that a petition raises a worthwhile topic and agree to consider it when we next review our work programme. Committees are able to say no and give reasons for that decision. We might also be able to manage petitions by referring them to one committee instead of several.
The paper raises the fair concern that the committee might become a final court of appeal on planning matters and so on. We discussed that matter some months ago and agreed not to assume that role. Each committee will probably have to work out how to cope with its work load but, as I said, I am instinctively unhappy about the suggestion that individual committees should adopt procedures that might undermine the petitions procedures. Committee conveners should discuss the situation and the Procedures Committee might have a role to play after such a discussion.
I support many of Murray Tosh's comments. It is right that individual committees should determine their own work loads and prioritise within those agendas. As a member of the Public Petitions Committee, I have found that there has been great value in allowing individuals to present their point of view, which allows us to give them a clear answer. We also need a defined time scale within which to respond to the petitioner, even if the response is that the committee cannot pursue the petition for X, Y and Z reasons or because it feels it has other priorities. Although I am reluctant to change the current system, my mind is not closed to the arguments and it would be helpful for the Procedures Committee to take a view on the matter.
Some time ago, the European Parliamentary Commissioner told the Public Petitions Committee that the German Länder provide one of the best examples of how a public petitions committee should cope with petitions. Indeed, the Public Petitions Committee should try to identify examples of best practice across Europe and the rest of the world and introduce them to the Scottish Parliament. At the same time, we are all on a steep learning curve about the best way forward. Petitions give the public a gateway to the Parliament and a cathartic opportunity to get certain issues off their chest. Even if the response is that the issues raised in a petition cannot be pursued, at least the petitioner is receiving a clear answer. I suggest that the views of other committees and individuals should be gathered, along with feedback from the conveners liaison group and the Procedures Committee.
I take quite a robust view on this matter. The Public Petitions Committee should either change its ways or be abolished. It currently acts as nothing more than a postbox that refers petitions to relevant committees and does no evidently useful work. It has been argued that petitions should be made available to the Parliament, but we have not properly sorted out how to deal with them. I agree with Murray Tosh that the matter should be referred to the Procedures Committee, as the procedures in this area are quite deficient. If the Public Petitions Committee is not prepared to reform itself, the matter should be taken through the appropriate route.
I have a number of concerns about the possible new approach. First, Murray Tosh pointed out the opportunity cost of dealing with petitions thoroughly. Ultimately, we have to decide that it is not reasonable for the committee to deal with 36 petitions, which means that we will have to select the petition issues that we will pursue and make a firm declaration that the other petitions will not be dealt with.
How do we go about that? We could sit down with all 36 petitions, decide that we will deal with a certain number of them—perhaps 10—and then discuss which those will be, but that might be a lengthy discussion in itself and may not be the most appropriate method. Another way would be to put the onus on individual members: if they wanted a particular petition to be taken forward, they would have to be involved in dealing with the paperwork. Members could then organise petitions as part of their work load, recognising that the committee may allocate only a limited amount of time to dealing with them. It would be up to individual members: if they wanted to sponsor a particular petition—argue that it should be dealt with and discuss how—part of the responsibility would be theirs.
Even when a petition is dealt with, how satisfied are we that the petitioners benefit? That is an interesting question that has not yet been resolved. All we have been concerned about so far are the mechanisms for handling petitions. I am interested in outcomes. What happens at the end of the process when a petition has been exhausted? How beneficial is the process? Is the selection process discriminatory? Fairness is an issue.
For all those reasons, I think that the Procedures Committee should consider whether the Public Petitions Committee should continue. It is important to deal with petitions, but there is an issue about how we do that. The onus should be much more on members. If they think that a petition is worthwhile and worth their time, they can deal with it. That would be a good filter.
I agree with most of Des McNulty's comments. We have to take some action as the present situation is unworkable. I agree with Des's comments about the Public Petitions Committee. I am not sure of its exact remit, but passing on every petition, irrespective of whether it relates to a reserved matter or to something we can do anything about, is not the way forward. However, it is fundamental that the Scottish Parliament should be able to receive petitions. I would have grave concerns about any attempt to dilute that facility. For that reason, the matter should be referred to the conveners liaison group, so that it can feed into the Procedures Committee.
Far be it from me to punt for extra work for the Procedures Committee, but a fundamental building block of this Parliament is the fact that people can submit petitions. The matter must be considered at a much more serious level than this paper suggests. If there is an issue about the role of the Public Petitions Committee, that is something the Procedures Committee will have to address, perhaps by changing the committee's remit or by giving it more guidance on how to deal with petitions.
I am always boasting about how different our procedure for dealing with petitions is from Westminster, in that all petitions are heard. It is important not only to protect that but to improve on it. A good way round the problem would be to ask the Public Petitions Committee to draw up its own report on its procedures and to pass that to the Procedures Committee. That would be preferable to the other rather top-down approach that was suggested. The Procedures Committee would then take things from there.
I am more than happy with what members have said—there is an issue about the Public Petitions Committee, and the Procedures Committee has a role to play in that—but the paper tries to discuss the mechanics of how we deal with petitions once we receive them.
Helen Eadie mentioned that petitions can be cathartic for petitioners. Members sometimes feel that they must deal with every petition because people have made the effort to submit them and because they deal with issues that are central to their lives and livelihoods. We must be more disciplined in our approach, however, because, as members have said, we have a work programme that needs to be dealt with. I am happy for a higher level discussion in the Procedures Committee to deal with the matter.
Some time ago, I spoke informally to the convener of the Public Petitions Committee about these matters. Not much has changed since then in terms of the number, style and content of the petitions that we receive. I am more than happy to allow the discussion to take place at the conveners liaison group if that seems appropriate. Do not get me wrong: the purpose of the paper was not to dilute the work that we do on petitions, it was to prioritise the work that we can do on petitions. The question is whether the glass is half empty or half full. Every petition will go to every member and every member will have the opportunity to take a petition forward. At some point in the process, all the petitions will end up back here to be dealt with in some shape or form, whether it is for the committee to note them or for it to decide to take action.
I fully accept what members are saying. Referring the work and role of the Public Petitions Committee and how that impacts on our work to the Procedures Committee is a valid approach and I am happy to promulgate discussion at the conveners liaison group.
We have a serious situation with petitions. We have 26 petitions and there will be more. I too take pride in the fact that we do not do what Westminster does with its petitions. When I go to public meetings, I proudly boast about our system, but it is beginning to have a major impact on our work load and we need to prioritise our work.
One of the issues that Parliament might want to consider is the fact that any individual can petition the Parliament. There has been some debate about whether only petitions from more than one individual should be accepted and about whether the Parliament should set a minimum number of petitioners. One particularly famous gentleman—Frank Harvey from Glasgow—submits probably more than half the petitions that come before the Public Petitions Committee, although that is not to diminish the importance of some of the issues that he raises.
The remedies open to the Public Petitions Committee are limited. It can refer petitions to a subject committee or to the full Parliament—that has happened in only one instance—or it can conduct its own inquiry. However, that remedy has proven to be a major problem, because other conveners feel that members of the Public Petitions Committee are either duplicating work or do not have the capacity in terms of research staff or support to deal with such inquiries.
It was interesting to hear what Des McNulty said about any member or any committee initiating legislation. That might be one of the things that could be considered if a sufficient number of members wanted it to be.
It is important for members to have that background. There have been some positive outcomes. We should ask the Public Petitions Committee for a report on all the cases that have been resolved. That would give a more balanced view. Let us consider not only the problems, but the instances in which we have been able directly to resolve issues for local people.
That is a fair comment. The Public Petitions Committee does not hand over every petition it receives—it deals with some of them directly and it does sift them. We have agreed a course of action. If members are comfortable with that, we will proceed on that basis. First, we will refer the question of petitions to the Procedures Committee. Secondly, we will promulgate a discussion on the handling of petitions by committees at the conveners liaison group. How petitions will be dealt with by the Parliament will be discussed at two levels.
We can certainly refer it, but we should be a bit clearer about what we want out of the process. Simply referring the matter does not resolve the problem. I would be keen to establish a filtering process that allows this committee to deal more effectively than has been possible hitherto with a proportion of the petitions that are currently routed to us.
The Public Petitions Committee could decide that a petition raises issues of principle or has such a great weight of opinion behind it that it deserves consideration, and it could refer such a petition on to us. Alternatively, we could get information about all petitions that concern our area of responsibility and individual members could be responsible for pursuing particular petitions. There could be a variety of ways of handling petitions, but the current system is impossible. We say that we are dealing with 36 petitions in a year, but we are not really doing that, and that is unacceptable. We need a mechanism that enables us to deal with a smaller number of petitions appropriately, so that the ones we take on are the most pressing ones.
We also need a mechanism for the petitions that we are not going to deal with. We need a way of saying, "Thank you very much for sending your petition. It has been considered by members of the Public Petitions Committee and the Transport and the Environment Committee, but it has been decided that we will not pursue the matter further." We must accept that we will have to do that in some cases. If we do not, our work load will be distorted by the petitions process. We must bite the bullet and just deal with the matter.
I suggest that we draw up a paper summarising the outstanding petitions. Perhaps we could do that when we have received all the referrals from the Public Petitions Committee for petitions received during the summer. The committee, or a sub-committee set up for the purpose, could then prune that list and bring to the committee's attention those that we feel are the most pressing and the ones that fit in best with our priorities.
That is a sensible suggestion, which we shall take on board.
One point that seems to come up time and time again is whether any member of the public should be able to submit a petition on their own, or whether there should be a minimum number of signatories.
That is a much broader issue.
That is a strategic matter to do with the petitions process in general. We are concerned, at a local level, with how this committee should handle the petitions that are referred to us. Des McNulty and Murray Tosh have suggested how that could be done. Do members agree to proceed on that basis?
Members indicated agreement.
I also suggest that we may want to circulate a note of our discussion to all the other committee clerks. Some committees have rushed into pursuing petitions, but it is something that we should all discuss together.
That is also a good point.