Public Petitions Committee, 25 Apr 2000

Meeting date: Tuesday, April 25, 2000

Official Report 291KB pdf

---

Current Petitions

We have a number of responses to current petitions to consider. The first is a response from the clerk to the Local Government Committee in relation to PE26 from the Bridge of Allan Public Interests Association, which called for local authorities and other agencies to recognise and record the views of individuals who have expressed their opinions through petitions. The Local Government Committee has considered the petition several times and consulted the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, the City of Edinburgh Council, Dumfries and Galloway Council, Highland Council and Stirling Council. The committee notes that the responses indicate that the number of petitions received by those councils is relatively small, that the petitions are subject to a process of scrutiny within each council and that members of the public can express their views to councils through other means, such as deputations and delegations. The Local Government Committee agreed to note the petition and agreed that the way in which petitions are dealt with is a matter for individual councils.

I have also received a letter from the Bridge of Allan Public Interests Association in response to the decision of the Local Government Committee. The petitioners are very unhappy. They point out that I addressed the nation not so long ago—I do not remember doing so—in an extremely robust and positive manner, saying that never again would the people's petitions be ignored. They ask: "What happened?"

"The Local Government Committee decided, having failed to comprehend the terms of the petition, that local authorities can, if they wish, totally ignore public petitions and even deny the existence, number of signatories and objective of a petition. In view of Parliament's decision, what purpose does Parliament think your committee is all about and insomuch as you do receive petitions do you intend to ensure that they are recorded on file and details of any petition passed can be accessed by the public, Parliament or any inquiry should the need ever arise? Whilst the decision arrived at by the Local Government Committee is not your responsibility, it clearly is your responsibility to explain your public rhetoric. I have no desire to put you on the spot, because I judge you to be honest and sincere in what you say. None the less, there is clearly support in Parliament for the view that the public need to be protected from their own opinions on those occasions when such opinion varies from that of the authority it is directed at. Please advise if this if the formal view of Parliament. Please also consider the human right for all people to have opinion, for such opinion to be recorded or registered in any manner of the individual's choice that has led to the delegation of public petitions. Also there is a clear conflict of opinion between the legitimacy of an enormous X on a ballot paper and the suppressed legitimacy of one's own signature and address on a petition form. In view of the shameful, deplorable and outrageous decision taken by the Local Government Committee on behalf of the Scottish Parliament, I reserve the right to copy this letter to Sir David Steel and/or any other with an interest in seeking ethical standards of honesty and decency in a civilised, democratic country."

They were not very happy with the decision of the Local Government Committee. What do members think that we should do?

That letter draws to my attention the need for a review of the way in which the committee operates. We must strike the right balance between listening to petitions and pursuing them. That will not be the only letter from a frustrated petitioner who has gone through the process only for nothing to happen. We need to focus on subjects, on how many petitions we send to committees, on how we pursue them and on ensuring that, whenever possible, something is done. As John Scott suggested, we should agree to set aside some time at the next meeting to review how we operate, rather than have that discussion today.

There are other issues in the pipeline and in the correspondence that lies ahead of us. I agree with Pauline—we should consider having a private meeting next week so that we can, as a group, discuss and review our position with regard to petitions and what we ought to be doing. Other committees do that in relation to their future business—the Justice and Home Affairs Committee certainly does.

We should have a free discussion on how we deal with petitions and how we ensure that they do not block the Parliament. I am aware that some committees and ministers receive many petitions. We can talk also about other matters that have arisen. We need to take a step back and consider how we deal with petitions; what we do with them, how we report progress on them and whether we should deal with progress reports at the same meetings at which we deal with new petitions. Our workload is getting quite heavy. I suggest that the committee meet in private next week to discuss those questions.

The letter proves that we desperately need a Public Petitions Committee. People are not unhappy with the committee. The group that wrote the letter is unhappy with the Local Government Committee's decision rather than with our decision. We should be careful not to overreact to one letter. The letter is not a complaint; it expresses the concern that, although we have done our job, the Local Government Committee has not done its job. At least people can be heard by this committee, but they are not being heard by committees such as the Local Government Committee or by councils. The onus is on the Local Government Committee—it could have made a change that would make life better for people.

We receive so many petitions because we are the only committee that is interested enough to take them and pass them on to other committees. The Local Government Committee did not grasp the nettle. Petitions will always come to the Public Petitions Committee because we are the only committee that pays attention to them.

I have nothing to say except that Fergus Ewing has gone with my papers—is there a spare set?

We should step back and consider our structure. We should not prohibit petitions, but we should consider the way in which we deal with and distribute them. We have operated responsively and responsibly but we must now examine matters. I am aware that the conveners of some committees are concerned about their committees' workloads. Although we do not want to kow-tow, we do not want to upset conveners or ministers unnecessarily or inadvertently. There are other matters arising on the agenda that seem to cry out for us to sit down and think about petitions.

The clerk intended to produce a paper that would draw together the lessons that the committee has learned from its experience. Next week is too soon to have that paper ready, but the clerk thinks that he might be able to prepare it for the committee's meeting on 9 May. We could then convene a meeting in private—perhaps in the following week—to consider the paper and address all the issues.

One problem is that we continually find ourselves in conflict with local authorities. People come to us after they have experienced poor decisions by local authorities. One way to address that problem is to persuade the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities to set up its own public petitions committee, to which we would pass local authority issues. There are other issues to be addressed, such as whether the committee should act as a screen for the quality of petitions. We must get the balance right between people's right to access to the Parliament and the role of the committee. The clerk's paper might address many issues and if the paper is available by 9 May, we can hold a special meeting in private in the following week to discuss those issues.

I suggest that we have a discussion before the clerk writes his report. We might want to air issues that could be incorporated into that report, which might assist the process. The matter needs to be dealt with pretty quickly.

I am available next Tuesday but I do not know whether other members are.

I think that what Christine Grahame has said is true. I have quite definite ideas about where I think that the committee should go, but it is an issue that I think we should kick around in a brainstorming session. I cannot do it next week. I would be prepared to submit my ideas to Steve Farrell. At the meeting of 9 May, I think that we must organise the agenda so that we can have a discussion afterwards, at 3.30 perhaps.

I think that we need an hour.

Christine Grahame is right. It has come to the point where this committee has meandered through different procedures and different ideas. We must focus on where we want to go. I agree that we must do that soon.

Will we try to set a meeting up for next Tuesday?

I would prefer it if Pauline McNeill—and indeed as many members as possible—could be there, so that we could bounce our ideas off each other. A paper would be more difficult for us to consider. We must get to the nub of several matters.

If we do not meet next Tuesday, the committee will meet the following Tuesday, 9 May, when we will consider a draft paper, which can be supplemented, taken away and brought back again.

As long as we get plenty of time to address this matter once and for all.

I propose that we should organise the agenda so that the business is finished by no later than 3.30, when we can have a private session.

Any petitions that we cannot deal with at that meeting in that time, we cannot deal with at that meeting. Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

I was thinking about this earlier and I suggest that if people are going to make submissions, we should take them first. That would be one of our operating principles.

The second response that we have had is from Margaret Smith about the petition received from the Scottish Socialist party, concerning a referendum in the Lothians about the method of funding the new royal infirmary. She is concerned that petitions should reflect factual situations and should not use inaccurate and misleading language. Her committee's contention would be that this petition misrepresents the situation. This is the kind of issue that should be discussed in the paper on the role of this committee. Can we refer consideration of that response to the clerk to include in the paper?

Members indicated agreement.

The next response is on petition PE70 from the Troon Against Pollution group. It is a letter from the Scottish Executive, which gives details of its decision not to intervene in the proposals to develop a freight terminal at Troon harbour; it is just for our information. A public local inquiry is taking place there, so the petitioners will have the chance to raise their concerns through that inquiry.

The public inquiry will deal only with the harbour revision order. I understand that it will not deal with any other aspects.

So it does not deal with the substance of the petition.

What was the substance of the petition?

It asked for an inquiry into the development of a freight terminal at Troon harbour.

I do not think that it will deal with that.

The Executive has responded to the petition; it is just a courtesy to tell us this. The question is whether we want to take the matter any further. I do not think that there is anything that we can do about it.

Do those responses all go out to petitioners?

Yes.

Do you want our comments before the next meeting?

Steve Farrell will be producing the paper.

Yes.

The next response is one from the convener of the Rural Affairs Committee, Alex Johnstone, about one of the petitions that we referred to it from Mr Frank Harvey. The Rural Affairs Committee is concerned about the quality of the petitions that are coming through and asks us to apply a quality check before we refer them to another committee. This is the kind of issue that will be addressed in the paper that we will discuss at the next meeting.

Members indicated agreement.

The next response is the response on petition PE107 about saving Overtoun park. South Lanarkshire Council has written a long and detailed response to that petition, in which it explains why the improvements to the park could be financed only through the sale of parts of the park and the reinvestment of money into the park. It details the consultation process followed by the council, which seems on the surface to have been satisfactory. Council officials are currently preparing a report on the proposals for elected members, taking into account all the comments received, including the objections.

What do members think should be done with this petition, given that we have had this response from South Lanarkshire Council? It seems to be a matter for the local authority, with no real locus for the Parliament to intervene. It is suggested that the petitioner's interests might best be served if the petition were formally passed to the council so that it can take the petition into account with the other representations that it has received.

Will the council actually consider a petition?

I hope so.

Is it agreed that we pass the petition to South Lanarkshire Council asking them to include it in their consideration of the matter?

Members indicated agreement.

The next response is to petition PE115, from Julia Clarke, on the rerouting of aircraft at Edinburgh airport.

You have missed your letter of commendation, dated 1 April. You can read out the good news in the penultimate paragraph.

There has been a letter from Mr Whittet about his experience of petitioning the Scottish Parliament. The final paragraph says that he found the convener and all the members of the committee courteous and considerate in their approach and that he asks that those sentiments be reported to the members at the next meeting.

It is nice to know that we are doing something right.

Going back to Julia Clarke's petition on the rerouting of aircraft at Edinburgh airport, we have had a detailed reply from the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions. It indicates that the matter of noise preferential routes is for each airport to determine in consultation with the various parties that might be interested, and that it is for the management of Edinburgh airport to provide adequate consultation with interested parties, including local residents organisations, about matters concerning the management or operation of the airport that affect their interests.

We are still awaiting a response from the Edinburgh airport consultative committee, which I think will be critical. I suggest that, in the interim, the operators of Edinburgh airport, Scottish Airports Ltd, should be asked to comment on the issues raised in the petition, and to provide details of the consultation procedures that it has followed. Do members agree to that course of action?

Being able to forward petitions to outside bodies is a great strength of the committee. It is a good way of obtaining information and responses.

Do we agree to write to Scottish Airports Ltd, the operators, asking it to comment on the petition and to provide details of the consultation procedure that it has followed?

Members indicated agreement.

We have had a response from the North of Scotland Water Authority to petition PE118, from Dr Ronald Crawford, on water charges. Members have a copy of the response, which has been forwarded to the petitioner. Are there any comments?

I have a disparaging comment to make, but I shall refrain from making it.

As someone who pays NOSWA water charges, I am none too pleased myself.

Do we agree to note that response?

Members indicated agreement.

South Ayrshire Council has sent a full response to petition PE130, on Carrick Street day centre in Ayr. It indicates that the day centre will stay open for a further six months to allow discussions about alternative accommodation to take place with the amenities committee. The response is encouraging and I suggest that we copy it to the petitioners for information. Do members want to do anything beyond that?

The information is slightly misleading. The centre will not be providing lunches, nor will it provide anything other than refuge for two hours in the afternoon.

That is not clear from the correspondence.

No, it is not. However, I understand that what I have said about the lunches is correct. There is a feeling of less than satisfaction with that position.

What do you suggest we do about it?

I am not experienced enough to know what to suggest.

We should ask John Scott, Adam Ingram and other members of all parties to comment. Many of the facilities have already been taken out of the centre, so that lunches can no longer be provided.

Lunches are definitely not being provided now.

If this letter is misleading, we must comment on it. Perhaps John Scott could check.

I do not think that the content is misleading—it is what it does not say that is misleading, although that might be unfair.

It might be useful if I wrote to the council to say that the committee understands that the level of service that is available through the centre has been significantly reduced, and that the committee would like the council to respond, specifying the reductions in services.

We could also ask what plans, if any, they have for those people in future. There might be other initiatives and there is a feeling in the community that something must be done for them.

I will write the council to ask what plans it has to compensate the people who are affected by the reductions in services.

It might also be useful to point out to MSPs that if they want to follow up responses to petitions, it is up to them to contact the clerk, because that information is not available on the web. There might be pressure exerted by MSPs who are unaware that responses have come through. Is that a step too far?

We could circulate information to MSPs indicating that responses are held and that any MSP who wants to pursue a petition can get in touch with the clerk if they want to see those responses.

Are the responses confidential?

They are public property. We would not otherwise be saying this in a public meeting.

The final response to consider is the response from the Scottish Prison Service on behalf of the Minister for Justice and Home Affairs to Longriggend Residents Association's petition. It appears that the Prison Service is firmly of the view that the share of the maintenance responsibility for the roads was conveyed to each purchaser of the former Prison Service staff quarters. It is reported that, despite that legal responsibility having been discharged, the residents have never fully accepted that position. The SPS has advised that the street lighting will not be turned off as claimed and that it agreed with residents at its last meeting to review the position and report back.

The question is whether the committee wants to pursue the matter further, other than to pass this information on to the petitioners. I think that we should do that, in the first instance. If they want to respond, they can. It must be pointed out that there seems to be a legal dispute between the petitioners and the SPS. The committee must be careful to not become involved in either side of that dispute. The matter might have to be settled by the courts. We should, however, pass the information to the petitioners and we can ask the Prison Service to keep us informed of its review. Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

That is it, thank God.

Are not we dealing with Duncan Hamilton's letter?

No. The letter arrived only today. We will consider it next week.