Public Petitions Committee, 26 Nov 2003

Meeting date: Wednesday, November 26, 2003

Official Report 306KB pdf

---

Convener's Report

We have to get new, updated guidance on the submission of petitions into the public domain, which will take account of how matters have been progressing on the committee. The clerks provided me with a copy of the draft guidance, which I approved on Monday. Members should receive a copy of that guidance today if they have not received it already. We have a very tight time scale for getting the guidance published, and it should have been given out earlier. I ask members to read the guidance today, if possible, and to get back to the clerks by tomorrow with their approval or concerns over it. Given the time scale, if members do not get back to the clerks by tomorrow, we will take it that the guidance is approved. If members have any concerns about the content of the new guidance, they should raise them with the clerks by tomorrow, as they are working to a tight publication time scale. The guidance will be made available in a range of ethnic minority languages, which is an advance. It would be useful to have members' input before the guidance is published.

It is pleasing to hear that the guidance will be made available in ethnic minority languages—that is first class. It would be helpful to know in what way the guidance differs from the previous guidance. I do not know whether the clerks are able to tell us that now. That could perhaps have been flagged up in bold letters.

Specifically, there will be guidance on e-petitioning and on our decision at last week's meeting to discuss petitions if the petitioner wishes to remain anonymous. The changes are all highlighted in the new guidance. If you have concerns about any of the new aspects, could you let the clerks know by tomorrow so that we have time to address them before the guidance goes for publication?

I was going to ask about the changes, too, but they are highlighted—although I cannot see them. At our previous meeting, we also decided that we would discourage MSPs from becoming petitioners, although we cannot ban that.

I do not think that we can do much about that. It would be up to the Procedures Committee to consider that.

We could mention our decision, although perhaps the guidance is not the appropriate place for us to do that.

I have written to the convener of the Procedures Committee, asking him to consider the issue so that it can be addressed.

The guidance also advises people that we are not a court of appeal. We want to discourage people from petitioning on decisions by local government or other organisations over which we have no authority. Although such petitions are submitted and are valid because the petitioners generalise, their motivation is to try to have a local decision overturned. When the supporting papers are submitted, it becomes apparent that the petitioners want us to consider a specific case.

In relation to the point that Jackie Baillie made earlier about published comments that are made about petitions, there is guidance on what would and would not be admissible.

The guidance is an update, with some changes, based on the committee's experiences. We are trying to adapt the information that the public have about how to get a petition brought before the committee to receive a fair hearing. If members do not notify the clerks of any concerns by tomorrow, we will take it that they approve the new guidance, so if members have any concerns, it is in their interests to let us know.

Members may recall a previous petition on behalf of the kirk session and the congregation of Riccarton parish church in Kilmarnock—PE620 from Mr Robert McWilliam. We have received a response from the Scottish Executive, which states:

"I have conveyed the Committee's recommendation to Historic Scotland that clear and accurate guidance be provided to applicants on levels of funding where grant-aided repair work is being undertaken in separate phases. I am advised that Historic Scotland has now amended its standard guidance for applicants to contain an explicit ‘health warning' making it absolutely clear that levels of grant may be varied in the course of a phased scheme of repair … Historic Scotland has also undertaken to give applicants as much notice as possible where it proposes to vary the level of grant."

That is a positive outcome on the specific points that the petitioner made. It is another tick in the box for the Public Petitions Committee, as we have seen some progress. It would be useful for us to let the petitioner know that we have received that response.

Do you think that "Newsnight Scotland" will cover it?

Do not hold your breath.

There are journalists in the room. Perhaps they will pick that up.

There is one other issue that I have to raise before I close the meeting. Steve Farrell, the man who sits next to me and keeps me right, has been the clerk to the Public Petitions Committee since the start, four years ago, but is leaving us as of today. He has done a tremendous job in helping me since I became the convener. Steve is going to clerk the Equal Opportunities Committee and the Communities Committee, in what he sees as a promotion. As of next week, the clerk to the Public Petitions Committee will be Jim Johnston, who was previously the clerk to the Equal Opportunities Committee.

Is he getting demoted?

I will let the clerks debate who is getting promoted and demoted. All I want to say is thank you very much to Steve Farrell for all the work that he has done on behalf of the committee. He has been invaluable in helping me to settle into my role as convener. I am not sure that I have settled into it, but think how bad it would have been if Steve had not been sitting here. I thank him personally for all his help and wish him every success in clerking the other committees. I hope that he will enjoy it—I am sure that he will. I wish him good luck.

I echo everything that you have said. I am really very sad, too. I have been on the committee for the same amount of time, since it started in 1999, when we were all elected. I am sorry because this is the end of an era.

I echo those sentiments. Steve Farrell has made an immense contribution to the quality of the committee. I am sure that that would be John McAllion's view, too. I served on the committee under John McAllion's convenership. The shape, structure and efficacy of the committee are, in no small measure, due to Steve Farrell's efforts. Well done.

Does anyone else want to say anything?

Good luck, Steve.

This is the first committee that I was on and it was a learning process for us all. Steve Farrell was the clerk then and we all learned together. I am sure that he knows more about the Public Petitions Committee than any of its members, and he has kept us all right. I am sorry to see him go, but I wish him good luck in his new position.

And so say all of us.

If members miss him that much, they can always seek a free transfer to the Equal Opportunities Committee or the Communities Committee.

The Equal Opportunities Committee is my normal committee, so I welcome Steve to it.

Before we get any tears, I close the meeting.

Meeting closed at 11:45.