Public Petitions Committee, 29 Oct 2003

Meeting date: Wednesday, October 29, 2003

Official Report 314KB pdf

---

Anonymous Submission of Petitions

The next agenda item is consideration of anonymous submission of petitions. At the committee's previous meeting, I asked members to consider this issue. The clerks were also asked to produce a paper on possible ways to deal with the anonymous submission of petitions.

I remind members about what happened. A member of the public approached me and said that they had a genuine concern that would merit a petition. The clerks and I considered the matter and believed that what we had been told was accurate. The person told us that she did not want to put her name to the petition, although she was more than happy to identify herself to the committee and to provide all the evidence that would be required. She did not want herself or her family to be dragged into the discussion relating to the petition.

I thought that her concerns were legitimate. She had a proper petition and simply wanted to remain anonymous, although the petition itself would not be anonymous. We had to find out whether there was a mechanism by which we could get the petition into the Parliament so that only the committee would know who had lodged it. A precedent could be set for other people who find themselves in a similar situation. If a petition is legitimate, all the evidence is verifiable and the person is identifiable, can that person remain anonymous in any discussions about the petition? The clerks have produced a paper, which has been submitted to members. Do members have views on the paper?

The paper is fair, particularly where it suggests that if the petitioner disagrees with the convener's decision, the case

"could be brought before the Committee for consideration."

I have a suggestion, although I do not feel particularly strongly about it one way or the other. Would it be possible to draw in the deputy convener at some point? Perhaps both the convener and the deputy convener could consider such petitions before they came to the committee. That could be another step.

John Scott seems to be happy with that suggestion.

My only concern is that anonymous petitions might be lodged more times than we think is appropriate. I do not doubt that we could consider individual cases but, by definition, they would be rare. There is a difference between a petition that is submitted with no name on it, which should go straight in the bin—if it is anonymous, it should not even be considered—and a case being made for anonymity. I would not want anonymous petitions to be considered too often.

I would also be wary of considering such petitions too often. That is why it is important that, if we want to set a precedent, we should not simply accept what has been suggested as a practice that could become standard. I had a lot of sympathy with the issue that was raised in the light of the information that I was given, and I thought that there were exceptional circumstances. The person who raised the issue with me said that she did not think that identifying herself or her family made any difference to the petition, which was a valid argument. Given such circumstances, I thought that we had to consider ways of dealing with such a petition. However, we should accept petitions on such a basis only rarely.

There would have to be exceptional circumstances. Perhaps the convener and the deputy convener could consider such petitions. I can foresee difficulties—I am thinking of what happened this morning. Six petitions were lodged and evidence was not given. If the petitioner does not attend a meeting, how will we obtain further evidence? Basically, those six petitions were inadmissible as one of the petitioners decided not to take any further action and therefore the two people who were to give evidence could not give it, albeit that, to be fair, they were willing to do so. We should be aware of potential difficulties. Like Mike Watson, I would be worried if we received an increasing number of anonymous petitions. However, I would leave it to the convener's discretion to reach a decision if a petition was important.

Mike Watson has hinted that what has been proposed could open up a whole new area of petitions from, for example, employees who are reluctant to make their names public, as their complaints are against employers. However, maybe that is a good thing.

If we were to allow such petitions to come forward, we could monitor the process. If we felt that it was opening up difficulties, we could review it. I do not think that we are setting anything in stone, but we could test the possibility of handling such petitions.

We should do our best to facilitate that. I do not know the details of the specific request to which you referred, but I can think of situations in which there might be similar concerns. For example, a woman who has fled domestic abuse may submit a petition in relation to the service that she has received through local agencies or social services, and she certainly would not want to be identified publicly to her ex-partner. It is important that we have that facility, but we should keep an eye on the situation.

We should bear it in mind that we are not changing any rules. The rules that are already in place allow that to happen. What we may do is publicise the fact that petitions may be considered anonymously, and that is where Mike Watson's worry comes in. Perhaps it is more important that the deputy convener is also involved, because then the onus is not just on one person, who might be accused of making a decision that is not right.

In general, we do not wish to consider petitions anonymously, but we would deal with each case on its specific merits.

Are members agreed on that?

Members indicated agreement.