Public Petitions Committee, 21 Sep 1999

Meeting date: Tuesday, September 21, 1999

Official Report 153KB pdf

---

Conveners Liaison Group

As members may know, the subject of committees meeting outside Edinburgh is quite contentious, not least because the budget for travel is very restricted. At the moment, the bureau makes the decisions on the matter.

The conveners liaison group will make several recommendations to the Procedures Committee. First, the group will recommend that it should be given formal standing in the standing orders and allowed to decide on the allocation of the travel budget between committees. Further, it will recommend that applications for travel outside Edinburgh should be made to the conveners group, rather than to the bureau, and that the group will consider such applications in the context of other priorities and other committees that are making bids for a limited cash budget.

The budget will restrict fairly severely committees' ability to travel outside Edinburgh. That is not an issue for just this committee to discuss. The conveners agree in principle that we can attend meetings outside Edinburgh and that, where possible, we should try to cut down the cost of doing so. If the meeting is official, the official report, security and others also have to be present and that adds enormously to the cost. The subject is under active discussion by the conveners liaison group and as soon as anything is decided, I will report back to the committee.

Why on earth was that not thought about before? The whole idea of this Parliament is that it will set up committees that are close to the people and go around Scotland. Why has it been decided only now that the budget will not cover that?

There is no point in asking me. [Laughter.]

You are on the liaison committee and I have to ask somebody.

The liaison group did not exist when decisions were taken about budgets. Those decisions were taken by groups that existed before the Parliament did—the consultative steering group, for example, made recommendations. Perhaps in a private session at the end we could raise this matter with the official from the Scottish Executive who will be reporting on it. The Parliament and the conveners liaison group inherited this situation; they did not create it.

It may well have been the view of some people that we should travel around the country, but I do not think that it was ever stipulated whether that would be as a Parliament or as a committee. As members, we have the right, within reason, to travel anywhere in Scotland. I am a member of the Transport and the Environment Committee, and if I get an invitation from a group to investigate an issue, I will go and visit that group, if time and other circumstances permit. I will go as an individual and if I need advice I will get an appropriate person to give me advice.

However, the issue of whole committees travelling raises big questions. Could I put my hand on my heart and say that it was absolutely necessary for a committee to travel, perhaps to stay overnight in a hotel, and to incur all sorts of extra costs? Could I justify that when there are a lot of competing demands for budgets and when throughout Scotland there are voluntary organisations that need money and people who need jobs? We should think long and hard about this. Would any decision that we have taken to date have been a better decision if we had taken it while away from the Parliament? That should always be a criterion. We should always decide whether the quality of our decisions would be improved by going out from the Parliament.

I partly agree with that. If we went out, would it have to be an official and recorded meeting of the Public Petitions Committee? Members of the Justice and Home Affairs Committee might be going out in scattered groups to prisons, but I do not think that we are taking the whole paraphernalia with us. We are going out simply to take evidence. In a similar way, this committee could go out for its erudition, because it wanted to learn more about a specific point concerning a petition. In that case, I do not think that we would need to take recording equipment, and we could go out without all the expense.

We could do that, but it would not be a formal meeting of the committee and it would not be officially recorded.

We do it already in the Justice and Home Affairs Committee.

Yes, but it is entirely up to this committee if it wants to go unofficially to visit places.

I can see two options. There might be a petition from an area where some big issue had arisen, and it would be appropriate—

We could travel there as individual MSPs and as members of the Public Petitions Committee, but we would not officially be the Public Petitions Committee when we got there.

But a situation could arise where the Public Petitions Committee might want to meet in public away from the Parliament, to deal with something of local concern. On other occasions, we might want to go out as the Public Petitions Committee, but without holding an official meeting, so as to reduce costs.

I do not disagree with anything that Helen said, except for her interpretation of where MSPs can go. Our remit does not allow us to go tramping around Scotland, even if we have a special interest in something and want to do so. My particular interest is in home affairs, but that does not entitle me to zoom up to Aberdeen to meet people there, no matter how interested I am or they are in my doing so. I suspect that our remit allows me to go round only the south of Scotland to meet constituents.

I agree with everything that Helen said, but perhaps—as the convener has suggested—the issue of travelling round the country was not completely thought out before. However, it was people other than those who are now in the Parliament who made those decisions. That is fine with me and I accept it.

I do not want to challenge that, but I would like to ask Phil some questions relating to his and John's experience of Westminster.

In the recess, we had a number of invitations; for example, some members on the Transport and the Environment Committee visited the Forestry Commission. Are you saying that you do not have a remit to do that?

Please speak through the chair.

Sorry.

This is interesting for me because I heard all the same points in the debate in the conveners liaison group.

There is no proposal before this committee to travel anywhere. There may well be one in future, but we can consider it then.

I am reporting back to the committee that this matter is under active discussion in the conveners liaison group. Recommendations for changes to the way in which these things are organised will go to the next liaison group meeting, and from there—hopefully—to the next meeting of the Procedures Committee. I stress that what will not change is the fact that there is a very limited budget—there is not a lot of money.

Is the budget fixed?

It is fixed. We had thought it was about £100,000, but it appears to be £75,000—it is very limited. Of course, some committees have a much stronger case for travelling than others do. Committees such as the Justice and Home Affairs Committee and the Social Inclusion, Housing and the Voluntary Sector Committee have stronger arguments than we have for calling on that budget. There may be circumstances under which we can justify travel, but we would have to do so against a list of other priorities for the Parliament.

I agree with what has been said. I am not against this committee travelling, and can think of a few occasions on which it could be justified, but there are several considerations. It would have to be in the public interest for us to go somewhere and hear evidence directly from the public, or it would have to help us make a decision. So far, there has not been any difficulty making decisions because of not having direct access to the public.

I believe in principle that committees should have the right to travel if they can justify it. As Christine said, it is the bureau that will decide whether the Justice and Home Affairs Committee can visit prisons. It will not be the whole committee, but groups of members, who make those visits. When the time comes, we will have to put our case as to why visits would benefit the committee and its decision making.

The argument is not just about cost. I would have to justify additional travel time and everything else. If we were to go longer distances, it would have to be for very good reasons. Most of us serve on two committees. I would have to balance a whole day's travelling against other interests.

Nobody is against travelling per se; I can see reasons why this committee will want to travel, but the future will determine whether we do.

I suggest that we do not debate whether there might be good reasons for this committee travelling. There are no proposals to travel at the moment. I am just informing members of the discussion of the conveners group.

The other matter that I was asked at the conveners group to raise was whether we should set a time scale for committees to respond to petitions that we refer to them. It was suggested that they try to respond within two committee cycles. That was very much frowned upon by the other conveners, who made it clear that they could not comply with that strict limit. It was suggested that our clerk should liaise with the clerks of other committees to work out a realistic time scale for reporting back.

It also depends on the nature of the petition. There might be petitions that require an almost immediate response. Perhaps in such cases we could, as Pauline suggested, attach a note to the petition to say that we would appreciate a response by a certain time, depending on the substance of a petition. Many committees are very busy now, so it would be foolish to set a timetable that could not be kept from the start.

Not least because work loads vary from committee to committee. The Justice and Home Affairs Committee is much more heavily loaded with work than are some other committees—I cannot think of one, and they will take offence if I mention them anyway.

Just keep saying that the Justice and Home Affairs Committee is very busy.

Some committees have busier work programmes than others, so it would be unfair to set a strict regime. We will liaise with individual committees on realistic time scales in which to deal with the petitions that we refer to them.

It is early days. We should recognise the work loads of other committees, but we cannot afford to let committees think that we will forget about petitions. From time to time, this committee might ask you to get in touch with a convener to find out why a petition has not been dealt with, so that we can keep petitioners informed.

We should advise the petitioner on what is happening. Having been a lawyer for many years, I know that the worst thing to do with a client is not to tell them why they are not hearing from you. Even if nothing is happening, you should write to tell them why. It is important to report back to petitioners.

There are two ways of doing it. We ask the subject committee clerk to ensure that the petitions are addressed by the committee. We also have the list that is published by this committee every session. We can use it to mark progress and take the matter up with the subject committee if any petition has not been progressed.

At the conveners liaison group, I stressed that petitions are not something that should be added on at the end of the agenda; it is central to what the Scottish Parliament is all about. The committees of the Parliament must deal properly with petitions and give them proper respect and a place on their agendas. That did not happen in the other Parliament and history cannot be allowed to repeat itself here.

Could we also ensure that the petitioners are told? This Parliament could do with some good public relations, and it would be bad if we did not get back to them. Even if, through no fault of the Parliament, something takes four or five months, they should know that the matter is being attended to and that there is a reason for the delay.

If there is undue delay, we shall get back to the petitioners and explain why.

Yes. That is important.

Are there any other issues? If a petition falls within the remit of two committees, the conveners are quite happy for this committee to nominate a lead committee. Officially, though, the right to do that lies with the bureau and with the conveners liaison group. The conveners want to be kept informed of our decisions as to which is nominated as the lead committee for a petition. The conveners are also happy to let me see any draft replies before they are sent out.

Are there any other issues that members would like to be raised at the next conveners liaison group?

I have had people approaching me directly about petitions. I told them—I hope it was appropriate—that they should contact the clerk about sending petitions, rather than members taking them individually, which would lead to chaos. I do not know whether other members have received petitions directly, but I did and I advised the petitioners to go through the clerk.

Any member who is given a petition should refer it to the clerk.

I know, but I was wondering about public guidance.

The public guidance should be to go to the clerk. That is the proper avenue.