Public Petitions Committee, 29 Feb 2000

Meeting date: Tuesday, February 29, 2000

Official Report 173KB pdf

---

Scottish Parliament Public Petitions Committee Tuesday 29 February 2000 (Afternoon)

[The Convener opened the meeting at 14:05]

I welcome everyone to the fourth meeting this year of the Public Petitions Committee. It is perhaps noteworthy that, at this meeting, we pass the hundred mark in the number of petitions that have been submitted to the Parliament. That said, petition PE99 has been withdrawn and will no longer be considered by the committee. Shettleston Traders Association would have had the distinction of being the 100th body to petition the Scottish Parliament, but will now have to fight it out with Milton Housing Forum.

I understand that Shettleston Traders Association requested to speak to its petition at this meeting. However, the clerk was told at about 1.30 pm today and I did not find out until 1.55 pm. That is a bit short notice; other petitioners are at the meeting. We need to establish a procedure for agreeing which petitioners can speak to their petitions at the meeting. The clerk will make some proposals at the next meeting. The form that we send out will ask people to indicate whether they wish to speak to their petition; then the deputy convener, representatives from all the parties and I can decide whether petitioners can speak at the meeting. We cannot make a rule that people can speak at short notice. Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

I approached the Shettleston traders, only one of whom wishes to speak at the meeting. However, we did not know whether that would happen until we spoke to Steve Farrell at 1.30 pm and I did not actually meet the traders until 1.20 pm. They would be quite happy to speak for only two minutes. I will respect the wishes of the rest of the committee; but perhaps the convener could indulge us this one time as the petition has 17,000 signatures and the traders have already travelled through to attend the meeting. It will be the last petition that we hear this afternoon, anyway.

I have no difficulty with that if it will last only for two minutes. After all, the petition has 17,000 signatures, which suggests that a lot of effort has been put into it.

In the circumstances, I support Sandra White and Phil Gallie. However, I take your points on board, convener, and think that it is a very good idea that people give advance notice on the form of whether they want to speak. That might sort out any future problems.

Given that three members of the committee have already said that they want the petitioners to speak, I have no problem with that. However, it is very important that we establish a procedure, because if everyone speaks to every petition, the committee will make no progress whatsoever.

You said that we have had 100 petitions already. If it were not for Mr Frank Harvey, how many petitions would we have had?

I do not have that information to hand.