Public Petitions Committee, 26 Feb 2002

Meeting date: Tuesday, February 26, 2002

Official Report 232KB pdf

---

Inadmissible Petitions

---

Greater Glasgow Health Board (Hospital Closures) (IP19)

There are three inadmissible petitions. The first is from our old friend Mr Frank Harvey. It calls on the Parliament to take the necessary steps to prevent the closure of NHS hospitals in Glasgow by the Greater Glasgow NHS Board. The petition relates to the executive decisions of the Greater Glasgow NHS Board. The petitioner argues that the decision of the Greater Glasgow NHS Board should be overturned.

As a Parliament, we have a legitimate interest in more general issues that relate to the procedure and consultation processes that surround the decision to close hospitals. We are not able to interfere with or overturn the individual executive decisions of public bodies in Scotland. On that basis, it is recommended that we agree that the petition is inadmissible.

Furthermore, there do not appear to be any further lines of action that the committee can recommend to petitioner, as he has already raised his concerns with the Greater Glasgow NHS Board, the Scottish Executive, the President of the European Parliament and local members of Parliament and members of the Scottish Parliament.

Is it agreed that the petition is inadmissible?

Members indicated agreement.

Mr Harvey is quite right, of course.

It is possible that he is.

He usually is.

---

Scottish Parliament (Powers) (IP20)

The second inadmissible petition—IP20—is from Mr Joseph Rowan. It calls on the Parliament to annul reserved matters that are imposed on it by the Westminster Parliament and to proclaim the right of auto-determination. The issues and actions that the petition calls for are reserved matters and are the responsibility of the United Kingdom Parliament. Therefore, they are outwith our competence. It is suggested that the petitioner be advised to contact his Westminster MP for advice. On that basis, it is recommended that we agree that the petition is inadmissible. Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

I am sure that Mrs Liddell will sort him out.

Absolutely.

---

Workplace Abuse (IP21)

The final inadmissible petition is from Mrs Cathleen Curtis. It calls for the Parliament to implement legislation in Scotland to make abuse in the workplace a criminal offence. The petition is based on the petitioner's personal experiences. She argues that stress-related injuries, harassment and psychological and physical abuse that occur in the work place should be made a criminal offence under law. The issues and actions that are called for relate to employment law, which is a reserved matter and is the responsibility of the UK Parliament. Therefore, the petition is outwith our competence. It is suggested that we write to the petitioner to advise her to contact the relevant UK Government minister or her local MP for advice. Is it agreed that we recommend that the petition is inadmissible?

Members indicated agreement.

I agree with great reluctance. The petitioner has an excellent point.

It is an excellent point, but it is simply not within the competence of the Parliament to deal with employment legislation.

That is very frustrating for the public.

It is also frustrating for MSPs.

There is no further business. Thank you very much for your attendance.

Meeting closed at 12:11.