Procedures Committee, 26 Apr 2005

Meeting date: Tuesday, April 26, 2005

Official Report 217KB pdf

---

Public Petitions (Admissibility)

Item 2 on our agenda concerns two issues relating to the admissibility of public petitions that the Public Petitions Committee has requested us to consider and an issue relating to consultation that has been raised by the Scottish Council of Jewish Communities.

I am sympathetic to the points that the Public Petitions Committee has raised in relation to the lodging of petitions by MSPs and the resubmission of petitions. I appreciate that some of the issues in relation to the resubmission of petitions are valid. Having been on committees that have received a number of petitions that are similar or identical to petitions that have been rejected or closed, I believe that the process is time consuming and has the same end result.

Consultation is a matter for the Public Petitions Committee and nothing should be set down in the standing orders in that regard. The committee will simply have to exercise its judgment.

I agree with Karen Gillon's points about petitions being lodged by MSPs and about it being best to leave the question of whom to consult to the discretion of the Public Petitions Committee. However, I am slightly concerned about whether a formal ban on the resubmission of petitions is needed. If the committees that Karen Gillon mentioned are being subjected to repeat petitions on the same subject, that is a failure of the Public Petitions Committee, which should not be referring those petitions to the committees, rather than a failure of the system. Surely the Public Petitions Committee should act as a filter.

Given the number of petitions that the Public Petitions Committee deals with, having to consider repeat petitions will prevent it from being able to spend sufficient time considering other petitions that have not already been considered. The proposal that is before us would enable the Public Petitions Committee to act as a filter by saying that people would not be allowed to resubmit a petition for a year after the initial petition has been closed. That would allow new petitions on different subjects to be considered by the Public Petitions Committee and subject committees.

There is general agreement that there should be a prohibition on the lodging of petitions by MSPs because, essentially, we would be petitioning ourselves, which is a strange thing to do. We can agree that in principle today.

The second issue is more complex. We could invite Michael McMahon to come to the Procedures Committee to talk about the Public Petitions Committee's reasons for pursuing that proposal. That would enable the points that Mark Ballard has raised about the Public Petitions Committee's current ability to act as a filter to be addressed. At the moment, the Public Petitions Committee clearly feels that it cannot do so properly. Do members agree to invite Michael McMahon to give evidence to us when he is next available to do so?

Members indicated agreement.

The third issue relates to a point about consultation that was raised with the Public Petitions Committee by the Scottish Council of Jewish Communities. Karen Gillon has said that the decision about whether individuals or bodies that are directly referred to in petitions should be consulted should be a matter for the Public Petitions Committee's discretion. Do members agree with that position?

Members indicated agreement.

That is the same situation that any other committee is in.

We will now move into private session to consider a draft report.

Meeting continued in private until 13:06.