Justice and Home Affairs Committee, 22 Sep 1999

Meeting date: Wednesday, September 22, 1999

Official Report 238KB pdf

---

Petitions

The first item on the agenda concerns two petitions that have been referred to the Justice and Home Affairs Committee by the Public Petitions Committee. Both petitions have been circulated to members.

The first petition concerns the Tenancy of Shops (Scotland) Act 1949 and has been submitted by Maclay Murray and Spens, a Scottish law firm. I presume that committee members have at least read through the petition, even if they do not understand it all. Are there any particular comments about the petition and the way in which we should proceed? I have an opinion as to what to do with the petition, but I want to ensure that other views are heard as well.

The proposed bill has many implications for small businesses. I am rather concerned about its contents, which seem to be weighted towards the owner of the property and would remove some protection from a small business, which might be a long-term lessee.

I can see some advantages to the bill, for example when we consider building renovation and improvement and the requirement to terminate leases in order to improve an overall business aspect of a property, but the interests of the lessee should also be examined. If we take the matter forward, we should perhaps talk to the Federation of Small Businesses and some retailer associations, as well as groups representing landlords.

I was going to suggest that, in the first instance, we should write to the Minister for Justice and inquire as to what consideration—if any—is being given to the general area of law the petition covers. We could establish whether the Executive is considering the matter and what approach it is taking. We could wait until we receive a reply from the minister before we decide whether the committee wants to take the matter any further.

At the moment, I do not have any information about what is being considered in relation to that area of law. There might be—or have been—consultation or discussion that would affect what is being suggested in the petition.

I do not have any problem with doing that. My difficulty with the petition is that it comes from people with a particular bundle of clients, with a particular commercial interest—I mean them no disrespect. Like Phil, I am afraid that the petition represents one side of the story. I do not have enough expertise to know the other side of the story.

I am happy to do as Phil suggests and to take information from the other side of the story, as it were. I am also happy to do as the convener suggests and to consult the Executive on its views. I am not willing to do anything until I feel that I know what is going on.

In any case, the committee might not want to progress the matter in the early stages of the committee's meetings, given the work load that we have. We have already started a couple of important areas of investigation and there would be problems finding time to deal with this one.

It would be useful to write to the minister to find out whether the Executive is doing anything. That would move us forward a little bit. When we get the Executive's response, we can discuss the matters that Phil raised and decide whether the committee wants to address the issues that are raised in the letter.

Does everyone agree with that?

Members indicated agreement.

We will ensure that the committee sees the draft of the letter to the Minister for Justice.

The second petition, petition 6, deals with the European convention on human rights. I have to say, at the outset, that I think that we should refer this back to the Public Petitions Committee and ask why it thought it was appropriate to send it to our committee. I think that it might be an inadmissible petition and I would like some guidance on that. I appreciate that that might put the Public Petitions Committee on the spot, and I also appreciate that there are members of this committee who are on that committee, but I am concerned about what we are being asked to do and whether it is admissible.

Does anybody have a contrary view?

We can send it to the Public Petitions Committee for the same reason it sent it to us: that we think someone else should deal with it.

When we receive petitions, we must deal with them seriously. I would want this petition to be treated seriously. My concern is with its admissibility. Before we begin to consider petitions, we have to be clear that they are admissible. I want to know why the Public Petitions Committee thought that this one was.

As a member of the Public Petitions Committee—I am sure that Phil and Pauline, who are members too, will be with me on this—I feel that I should inform you that we are trying to provide guidelines for the presentation of petitions. To be blunt about Mr Frank's petition, it is rather rambling in places. We are trying to have the process for the submission of petitions tightened up so that there is clarity when petitions are remitted to other committees.

I agree with you that petitions must be taken seriously. People make an effort to submit petitions to the Parliament and, although we might find some of them difficult to follow at times, they are calls for the Parliament to do things and should be treated in a fitting manner.

Phil, Pauline and I will take this petition back to our other committee and try to assist Mr Frank to formulate his submission so that the point is clearly made.

That would be helpful. Is the committee agreed that we should send the petition back to the Public Petitions Committee to secure a clearer explanation of why it is considered admissible and to ask for it to be submitted in a form in which we are more able to deal with it?

Your comments are valid. The Public Petitions Committee will also welcome your comments on attempts to overturn court decisions.

Phil is referring to a discussion in which I said that we need to be careful that we do not end up in a situation where people petition this committee on the outcome of court decisions. That is not the job of this committee and I would be concerned if it were seen to be.

Can I assist you on that? The Public Petitions Committee discussed that yesterday and made it plain that that would be one of the areas where a petition would not be admissible, because it would be endeavouring to review an appeal. In defence of the Public Petitions Committee, we are finding our way and are trying not to be too hard on petitioners to start with. To assist people, we are beginning to structure things to make plain what is competent and not competent, admissible and inadmissible. We dealt with that yesterday.

That is as may be, but we must still deal with petition 6. I have suggested that we return it to the Public Petitions Committee for a clearer explanation.

Is everybody agreed?

Yes.