Procedures Committee,

Meeting date: Tuesday, May 24, 2005

Official Report 265KB pdf

---

Public Petitions (Admissibility)

Members have before them a paper from the clerk, PR/S2/05/8/6, that addresses the issues that were raised by the convener and the clerk of the Public Petitions Committee at our previous meeting, regarding the admissibility of petitions. It contains a suggested way forward that is not exactly in line with what the Public Petitions Committee seeks, but which I hope will provide a route that satisfies the wishes of petitioners and of the Public Petitions Committee. I ask Andrew Mylne to summarise briefly the conclusions in the paper.

The paper suggests separating out the two issues that the Public Petitions Committee is concerned about. One is the issue of what I have described as vexatious petitioners, which is shorthand for people who basically will not take no for an answer and who resubmit a petition or come back with another petition that is similar to one that has already been considered. The other, wider issue relates to subjects that the Public Petitions Committee feels have been considered in sufficient detail for the time being and to which it does not want to devote further parliamentary time for a certain period.

In the interests of securing an appropriate degree of clarity and of ensuring that the admissibility criteria are used correctly, the suggestion is that the first of those issues could be dealt with by a new admissibility rule and that the second could be dealt with by clarifying the Public Petitions Committee's ability to close petitions at any stage in the process, so that it can make a decision on the record not to give further time, or ask another committee to give further time, to a subject matter that has been considered in depth.

Having read over the Official Report of our last meeting, I think that, frankly, our discussion went round in circles. The Public Petitions Committee seemed to want new rules to be put in place so that somebody else could say that a petition need not go on the agenda. However, I think that it would be fundamentally wrong to establish those rules.

I accept that there have been vexatious petitions and that it is right for the committee to be able to say that it will not consider them further. That is perfectly fair. However, that could be done simply by allowing the committee to close petitions at any stage, which would be the best route to follow.

I am somewhat concerned about the issues relating to the example that is given in paragraph 21 of the paper. The Public Petitions Committee's suggestion is that, once a petition on the subject of the closure of rural schools, for example, was considered and closed, no more petitions on that subject would be considered for a year after that date. However, as our paper points out, the first petition might be concerned with a closure in the Borders and a subsequent one might be concerned with a closure in Aberdeenshire or the Highlands. I would have difficulty with a rule that said that the subsequent petition would be inadmissible, because the circumstances surrounding the particular closures are bound to be different in each place. The decision about whether to consider the petition must be for the committee to make.

I suggest that the Public Petitions Committee's concerns might be addressed simply by giving the committee the power to close a petition at any point.

Andrew Mylne's paper is suggesting roughly what you want while addressing the issue of the vexatious petitioners.

I remember arguing that point two weeks ago and being disagreed with.

We are trying to reach a solution that does what you want to do but also takes account of what the Public Petitions Committee thinks it needs in a way that makes some sense. It has been suggested that we ensure that there are certain rules on admissibility that will allow the clerks to say whether a petition is inadmissible. If somebody disputes the clerk's ruling, the petition will go to the committee for consideration, even if it is a clear repeat of a similar petition. There is no harm in having a rule that states that someone cannot resubmit a petition if it has already been dealt with.

We have been given the example of a petition about an Aberdeenshire school closure being lodged after a petition about a Borders school closure has been closed. That would not be the same petition, but the committee would have the power to say that it had considered the issue of rural school closures—or that the Education Committee had done so—and decided that, because it could not do anything about the issue, it was going to close the petition. It would be the decision of the committee whether to do that.

I still have some concern about how the committee can say—

It is up to the committee to make the decision. We are giving the committee the power to make that decision; we are not saying that it has to make that decision. It is up to the committee to decide.

But it is a change in the rules. Just now, the committee would be required to consider the petition; that is the difference.

The committee will still have to consider the petition. It will have to consider whether it accepts that there are grounds for closing the petition without giving it further consideration.

I have no problem with the issue of vexatious petitions. I am sure that we all agree that the committee should be able to take such petitions out of the system. However, I am concerned that we could hit a situation in which the issue of rural school closures in the Borders has been considered by the committee and a further petition on the subject comes in from the Highlands or Aberdeenshire. There might well be great differences in the reasons for school closures in those areas and in the cases that are put forward. At the moment, the committee would be required to go through the process of listening to those reasons and cases; however, this proposal would enable it not to go through that process. It is that extension of the rule into areas other than vexatious petitions that I have concerns about.

I was a member of the Education, Culture and Sport Committee for four years, and rural school closures was the most common issue to be raised with the committee. However, the committee could not change the decision of a local authority; it could only ask the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities or the Executive to produce guidance, and it could consider whether that guidance had been followed in the closure of rural schools. The problem was that, every time a rural school was put forward for closure, a petition came to the Scottish Parliament. There could be 11 or 12 petitions to deal with at the same time under the same process, and the conclusion was the same for them all—that the guidance existed and should be followed.

In effect, the proposal is saying that it is unnecessary for the Public Petitions Committee to refer a petition to the Education Committee to get the same decision as the Education Committee made the week before on the same issue, although in a different area. If the Education Committee had made a decision that there was a process and guidance that people should follow, the Public Petitions Committee could refer the petitioners to that information. That would save a subject committee dealing with essentially the same petition, to which it would give essentially the same answer, except concerning a different area of Scotland.

What if the issue concerned health boards?

That is different.

I take Karen Gillon's point on board, and I support the proposed changes to rules 15.5 and 15.6, so that the Public Petitions Committee "shall decide what action to take" on a petition and will then have an option (d) to close a petition for the reasons that Karen outlined. That would give the Public Petitions Committee the power to deal with vexatious petitions and petitions that were simply retreads from different people who might be unaware of the previous petitions.

I am much more sceptical about the proposal on admissibility. I do not like the idea that a petition that might have been admissible last month would not be admissible now. I suggest that we keep the rules on admissibility as they are now but make it clear that the Public Petitions Committee, not the clerk to the committee, will decide on such things. We can give the committee the power to close a petition in relation to which discussion would be of no practical benefit once it has been asked to consider it. That would do it.

I propose that we keep what is suggested in paragraph 25 of the paper, which would give the committee the power to decide what action to take on a petition, rather than require it merely to consider it. One such action could be to close the petition at that point. I would like to give the committee that power of closure, but I am much more reluctant to go into the issue of admissibility.

I think that you have strayed beyond the subject that Bruce McFee was discussing. Before we come back to your points, I shall invite Jamie McGrigor to comment.

I think that most of what I was going to say has already been covered. The school issue was quite a good example, but if a petition is in all appearances similar, could there be some way of putting the onus on the new petitioner to show why their petition is different?

I think that the clerks would do that.

Is that done now?

They would encourage the petitioners to show in the supporting evidence to the petition why it should be considered differently to any previous petition. I think that the clerks would do that as part of their work, although I do not think that we could write that into standing orders.

The convener is correct.

I disagree with Mark Ballard in that I think that there are vexatious petitioners. We have to face up to the reality that there are serial petitioners who, if they do not get the answer that they want after a long and lengthy investigation, just bring the petition back again. Essentially, they clog up the system. Even if it is to save just one bit of paperwork, we should have a rule that says that, in such circumstances, the petition is inadmissible.

If there is a rule that says that a petition is not admissible and the petitioner says, "I don't accept that," the dispute will have to go to the committee anyway, so why do we not simply give the committee the ability to say, "Sorry," and to close the petition?

Part of the issue is that we must tidy up the admissibility rules. In effect, the clerks make the decisions and indicate which petitions go to the committee, but that is not what the current rules say. We want a single set of rules for everything when it comes to admissibility. I personally think that it is helpful to have it written into standing orders that a petition is not admissible if the same petition has already been closed. That sends a clear signal to—

What does "the same petition" mean?

Let us not get into what is ultimately a matter for the Public Petitions Committee to determine when it considers a dispute. It would be helpful for members of the public to know that in standing orders there is a rule that is quite clear and which says that you cannot keep submitting the same petition time and time again. People should not be able to keep repeating the same petition.

It is up to the Public Petitions Committee to handle a dispute. If Mr X says, "This is not the same petition; it's a different petition," it is up to the committee, not the clerks, to determine whether it is the same petition.

If I may, I would like to give a quick example to show why I think that it might be easier for the Public Petitions Committee just to deal with such petitions. Suppose, for example, that something has changed in the meantime—something, perhaps, that the committee, or even the Parliament, would like to deal with, but the clerk turns round and says to the petitioner, "We believe that the petition is not admissible."

The petitioner would then say, "I disagree with you, and this is why." The onus is on the petitioner to show why, and the committee makes the decision.

Given the make-up of the Public Petitions Committee, I think that there must be a genuine problem if the committee has come to us. I would find it unusual if that group of people were to come to a consensus, but they appear to have done so on this point. That suggests to me that there is a genuine problem. The members of that committee are quite a diverse group of people with a diverse range of interests, and their coming to a consensus suggests to me that they have a very real problem. Our report does not go as far as they wanted us to go, but it goes some way towards it. For that reason, I support the report that the clerk has written and I suggest that we contact the Public Petitions Committee, ask for its views and come back to the matter at a future date. If folk want to take bits out of the report, however, we will have to deal with that.

I accept that there is a problem. No one is disputing that. Indeed, if there had been no problem, I certainly would not have been expecting to consider the matter in such detail just now.

However, we have to quantify the problem and determine the best way of resolving it. There is also some dispute about that. If, as the report suggests, the convener wishes to speak to the Public Petitions Committee and get a view from that committee's convener, we should seek views from him on both proposals in the paper. I suspect that, if he wants more, he will choose the proposal that will give him more. In any case, let us put the question to him.

I am happy to ask the convener of the Public Petitions Committee whether he would consider having a power adequate to his needs immediately to close a vexatious resubmission or repeat petition. I suspect that I know what his answer will be, because we asked him that very question at our last meeting. Of course, that is no reason not to ask him the question again.

Are members content that I write to the convener of the Public Petitions Committee to say that the committee is considering two proposals? Under the first proposal, the rules on admissibility would be tightened up to ensure that the Public Petitions Committee would have to decide on a petition's admissibility only in cases of dispute, and an additional criterion would be introduced to cover vexatious resubmissions. On the other hand, that additional criterion could be dealt with through the new power of closure that is also being proposed.

Is there any consensus on the new power of closure?

The suggestion is that we write to the convener of the Public Petitions Committee and ask whether the committee wishes to have such a power. No one has indicated that they are against giving the committee that power.

I wonder whether it is worth indicating to the convener of the Public Petitions Committee that there is consensus on one new power but not on the other.

I think that he will have access to the Official Report of this discussion, so he should be well aware of what the committee is considering.

I want to clarify what the dispute is. Members probably agree that the powers to close a petition immediately would do the job; the question is whether there should be a stage before that happens.

There is also a question about whether there needs to be a power to close petitions. The consensus is that no such clear and defined power exists at the moment. However, the proposal is that such a power should include the right for the Public Petitions Committee to close a petition immediately, without having to refer it on or investigate it first. I do not think that there is any concern about the principle.

But the question is whether there is another stage before that decision is made.

Yes. We are seeking views from the Public Petitions Committee on the question whether repeat petitions should be dealt with at administrative level and referred to the committee only in cases of dispute. Is the committee content to do that?

Members indicated agreement.