Public Petitions Committee

Meeting date: Tuesday, June 29, 2010

Official Report 451KB pdf

---

Work Programme

The final item is consideration of a revised work programme for the remainder of 2010. The committee is invited to consider and agree on whether to hold its external meeting in Arran on Monday 13 September and not Monday 20 September and on the revised meeting dates as set out in paragraph 9 of the work programme. The committee is also asked to note that the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body has agreed to the committee’s holding its meeting at the Scottish Youth Parliament conference on the morning of Friday 29 October 2010 in the chamber.

As Arran high school has said that it cannot accommodate the date that was first proposed, we should go for 13 September and not Monday 20 September. That is sensible and the clerking team has laid out the position clearly in the paper.

I have a problem, which is my fault entirely—mea culpa, mea maxima culpa. I had not realised that I must be somewhere else—Oban—on Friday 29 October. The convener and Cathie Craigie will probably have to be in the same place as me. That presents a bit of a problem, for which I apologise to the clerk. Labour members of the committee have a problem because the Scottish Labour conference is being held on 29 October.

We do not mind.

The committee decided to meet on 29 October because the Scottish Youth Parliament’s conference is on that date, so changing that meeting date will not be easy.

The meeting on 29 October is fixed, because the Scottish Youth Parliament’s conference is being held on Friday 29 and Saturday 30 October. The committee’s meeting will be part of the wider conference, so the date is not moveable.

The suggestion is that, if we meet on 13 September, we will not meet on 20 September, which we are of course in favour of. However, I ask the clerk whether we will have enough time to deal with all that we know is backing up. I am not looking for more work to do, but I am conscious that the work already exists. We should consider whether, if we cancel a meeting, we will wish in February that we had held it.

We are still timetabling the same number of meetings—eight—between the end of the summer recess and Christmas. The committee will probably find that it goes back to having a more traditional workload, with about seven or eight new petitions and about 15 current petitions to consider at each meeting. If the committee wants to timetable an additional meeting, we can come back to you on that.

Do we want another meeting? No. Do we want a manageable schedule? Yes. Bill Butler and I were reflecting on the scheduling of Justice Committee meetings recently. We know what happens when we run out of time to do things. That is why I asked the question.

I take Nigel Don’s point. However, if we have to have another meeting, can I make a plea for it not to be on 20 September? The End of Life Assistance (Scotland) Bill Committee, which has also run out of time, has scheduled an evidence-taking meeting that afternoon, on the basis that the Public Petitions Committee is not meeting.

Our meeting would be on 21 September.

Will Fergus Cochrane share his views on a manageable workload?

On new petitions, there is likely to come a point—I am not sure when—when the committee will draw a line under new petitions for consideration. After that, new petitions will go before our successor committee.

On current petitions, a couple of times each year the committee has had a meeting at which members considered only current petitions, with about 40 to 50 petitions on the agenda. That is a lot of work, but it is a convenient way of getting a large number of petitions in front of the committee for consideration and decisions. The intention is to timetable probably a couple more current-petition-only meetings between September and dissolution.

We will perhaps look to bring petitions back to the committee within a tighter timescale. We might be able to bring forward deadlines that we set for people to respond and cut timescales in that way.

The workload is all still manageable in the number of meetings that are scheduled. Having two current-petition-only meetings would assist greatly, because that is a convenient way of getting a large number of petitions considered.

The number of current petitions has gone down slightly to below 100, but during the summer recess new petitions continue to come in and the number will creep up, so there will inevitably be a backlog after the recess.

Unless we meet over the summer.

I take it that that was a joke.

If there are no more comments from members, are we happy to agree the dates?

Members indicated agreement.

Okay.

I neglected to read out a message from Elizabeth Smith in relation to PE1115, to which Nanette Milne referred. As a result of the revised parliamentary business schedule, a meeting of the Education, Lifelong Learning and Culture Committee was rescheduled for today, so Elizabeth Smith was unable to attend this meeting—I thank her for sending her apologies. In her e-mail, she said that she would be very grateful if I could draw her views to members’ attention. With members’ agreement, I will do so now. She wrote:

“I would like to reiterate my support for petition PE1115 (Re-opening of Blackford Station) on the basis that there are, I believe, very strong grounds for a full debate about how the recent, very comprehensive feasibility study commissioned by COBRA can be incorporated into the wider strategic transport review for the Tayside area. The petitioners have, in my view, over a long period of time, demonstrated their commitment to the best interests of different groups within the local community and have engaged fully with that community as they have presented a well-balanced case.”

That is now on the record.

That concludes our final meeting before the summer recess. Our next meeting will take place at 2 pm on Tuesday 7 September.

Meeting closed at 16:29.