Official Report 153KB pdf
The next item on the agenda is the draft document on guidance on the submission of public petitions, which was distributed at the previous committee meeting and about which we were asked to send our comments to the clerk. Nobody wrote in, so either we think the guidance is excellent and cannot be improved or we are too busy. We have two alternatives; either we talk about it now or we request that members send their comments to the clerk before the next meeting. However, since no one responded the previous time I do not think that that would be fruitful. Are there any points that anyone wishes to raise with regard to this paper?
We have had a debate today about an individual submitting a petition. Would it change things too much if we accepted that an individual backed by x number of petitioners should be the basis for petitions in future? A petition is more than one person's opinion.
It is fortunate that you raised that matter, because it relates to the second item on page one of the guidance document, which states that:
I do not think that we are entitled to change that rule: it is fixed.
We would be entitled to do it by going through the Procedures Committee.
That is a different matter.
The matter would have to be referred to that committee. We had a debate about this issue a short time ago. John was concerned about some elements of it. Given those concerns, which will be recorded in the minutes, it might be worth at least considering the matter.
To be fair, the concern that I expressed was not the fact that an individual had submitted a petition, but the fact that MSPs had signed up to it.
I do not know how we can change the rules once we have started, because people may have submitted petitions with only one signatory. It might be inappropriate to change the rules when some petitions are in the system.
I think that we covered ourselves in the minutes when we said that we were not setting any precedents. We should keep the matter under review. I am not against individuals submitting petitions. If it is a genuine petition, individuals should be allowed to have their say but, as the convener said, the concern is over people trying to bypass the procedures, or doing things that they could not get done by another way. That is the context in which I would like to review whether the system is working.
I would be loth to amend that condition at this stage, but it should be kept under review to determine how it operates. It is an issue that we should be aware of and attentive to.
For the same reasons, we should keep submissions from corporate bodies under review. They, too, are probably a good thing, but the same concerns would apply if they became a mechanism for lots of law firms to get things on the agenda.
I realise that we are talking about keeping things under review, but my problem with that is that we might then pick which corporate body's petition can be admitted and which can not. That is where we would get into difficulties, especially when we made close decisions. However, I accept that we can keep it fairly loose for now.
Under review simply means that we are aware that there is a potential problem and that we are keeping an eye on it. If we see a problem emerging, we will go through the Procedures Committee to make recommendations.
Yes.
Is there anything else on page 1?
The second paragraph on the form of petitions refers to a pro-forma being attached. It is followed by a note to members in a larger typeface, which says:
It is interesting that you raise that point. In accordance with the standing orders—I think it is in rule 15.4.4—our committee should determine the proper form of petitions. A petition will be deemed inadmissible only if it is not in that form. That causes problems for the decision that we have made that we should be less rigid and non-prescriptive. It has been suggested that the clerk, with the Parliament's legal team, should prepare a report to bring to the next meeting of the committee. They would consider what the proper form would be. It might be just that the petition must be written in black ink on an A4 sheet of paper. That would allow some flexibility. Their advice will allow us to stay within standing orders while being flexible.
In the last meeting, I mentioned the small claims forms that exist in the alleged do-it-yourself process in the civil courts. I think that a form that has boxes for people to fill in will help them. It would not impede them or prescribe the process.
Yes I am. I will be as helpful as possible.
We will produce a model form and recommend that form to people. If somebody decides that they want to submit a petition in a different form, we will not say no.
The point is that, in the sheriff courts, people can do their own writs as long as they have specific pieces of information on them. They can be handwritten. We should not be scared of pro-forma things but—
There is a danger of getting uptight about this. There will be a suggested form for petitions that will be available to the public. I expect that most members of the public will follow that form, but they will not be required to.
Your advice would be useful, convener.
If we get legal advice about how we—
My God. Sorry.
I agree with the spirit of what Christine is saying, but the danger is that members in later years might not have our generosity of spirit and things might get difficult for the public. It would be useful if you could get some sympathetic guidance for us, convener.
The mention of legal advice concerns me greatly. Christine's comments about sheriff courts and all the paper work in them concerns me even more.
We are making it easier, not more difficult, for people to approach us. Pauline pointed out, for example, that the petition from the chap about the NHS complaints procedure included a lot of personal details. If the ombudsman saw that, it could go against the man's case. We are telling people how to present petitions, not sending them back. If somebody writes something illegible in a petition it could take six weeks for the petition to be resubmitted by the time we send a letter to tell them how the petition should be filled in. We are giving people a choice by telling them the way in which they should proceed. We need to give some form of guidelines. Apart from anything else, people will expect it.
When we dealt with admissibility, we dealt with all the things with which people must conform. We will provide guidelines. This is not an either/or situation; there can be both. There will be an easy way for people to make petitions, but if they choose not to do them in that way, we will not be prescriptive.
I agree with Christine that we need a wee bit of discipline. As time goes on and people get into the way of thinking, we will have more petitions to deal with. We must be able to manage that properly. If there is a presumption in favour of taking as many petitions as we can, as long as they meet a few simple rules, that should be recorded for all time. Our objective is to allow as many people as possible to send petitions and to have their say, so that debates can be held in other forums. As you say, convener, only a few simple rules are required. If people feel that an issue is important enough to submit a petition in the first place, they will be happy to follow a few simple rules, which is all that we are asking.
I quite like the fact that the pro-forma petition that has been produced includes an instruction to insert a one-line title for the petition.
We have not reached that yet.
No, but we are talking about the form. People have asked me about petitions. We are showing them how to do something that they do not know how to do. We are not saying that it is the only thing that they must do, but that this is how to do it. Nothing crystallises someone's point more than having to summarise in one line what it is they want, which is what the instruction on the title asks people to do. That helps. Most people, as we know, who have problems or complaints will tell their whole story. One then has to work out what the real problem is. The pro-forma petition is therefore an aid, not an impediment.
Nobody is suggesting that it would be anything other than that. There will be a recommended form of petition in the Scottish Parliament, but it will remain at this committee's discretion to accept or reject petitions in other forms. That is all that we are saying.
Okay, but I am pitching for our having a form.
I accept that it is at our discretion, but I submit that in the case of a number of the petitions that we will receive, people will already have been out in the street and have picked up a couple of hundred signatures by the time they go to an MSP to ask what procedure they should follow. At that point, the last thing we want to do is say that the petition is not in the correct format. I have no difficulty giving people a format, if it is just a case of agreeing a single line for the title with the clerk.
Nobody is trying to make things too rigid. We all agree that there should be a recommended form, to which people should adhere as far as possible. All we are saying is that it is at our discretion to accept other forms of petition. Is it agreed that the clerk should report back with legal advice on how we can allow discretion and still comply with standing orders?
Are there any comments on page 3 of the draft guidance on the submission of public petitions?
I apologise for not writing in with this point. Like a lot of people, I said that I would, but did not.
Was this point not raised at the previous committee meeting?
Petitions must be received on a day when the office of the clerk is open.
Is it the view of the committee that people should be able to submit a petition on any day?
I understood that petitions could be submitted on any day other than those when the Parliament had agreed that it is in recess.
As the draft guidance stands, the recess would be excluded, which is a problem.
It is still not a problem. If the public want to petition us on a matter of major concern, or to have a recall of Parliament, this committee should have the power to meet, receive the petition and form a view on what to do with it. That applies at all times, 365 days a year.
I do not want to raise the thorny issue of how many weeks we are in recess every year, but—
I have had one week's holidays—are any members of the press here?
There is a substantial period during which the Parliament does not meet, but people should be able to submit petitions on those days. We could recommend to the Procedures Committee that the standing orders be changed to allow people to present petitions at any time. Do we agree to do that?
Are there any other comments on pages 3 or 4 of the draft? What about annex A, the format for petitions? I think it is very good.
Finally, there is annex B, the format for e-mail submissions. Is that okay?
Again, I would include example text for people to follow. It may sound ridiculous, but people feel insecure—I know I do—when they are filling in forms.
If that amendment—to include examples in the empty boxes—is incorporated, is that agreed?
That takes us on to my report from the conveners liaison group. Members will remember that we sought to raise several issues with that group.
Before we move on to that, we appear to have skipped paragraph 15 in the draft guidance:
I did not notice that change.
I am looking at a copy that we received at a previous briefing.
I have been advised that although the new version is condensed, the same points are covered.
I wondered whether some points had been dropped.
The options that are no longer included are those that recommended that we take no action. It was felt that we should always do something, even if it was simply to write back to the petitioner to say that no further action would be taken.
I have just compared the two versions and everything appears to be all right.
It was amended under the guidance of the committee; the clerk has not tried to pull a fast one.
I am satisfied that there has been no jiggery-pokery.
Not on this committee anyway—there may be on other committees, but not here.
Previous
Progress