Public Petitions
The next item of business is a debate on motion S2M-3595, in the name of Donald Gorrie, on behalf of the Procedures Committee, on its sixth report in 2005, on the admissibility and closure of public petitions.
Again, I pay tribute to Iain Smith, Karen Gillon and their colleagues on the Procedures Committee as it was when the report was produced. I have inherited the task of speaking to the motion. I thank Michael McMahon and the Public Petitions Committee, which made the proposals to which the Procedures Committee is now responding, as well as the clerks of the two committees who worked on the report.
There are three main points in what members are being asked to vote on. First is the question whether MSPs should be allowed to lodge petitions. Second is the submission of petitions that cover an area that has been dealt with recently under a previous petition. Third is who decides on the admissibility of petitions and the powers of any committee to terminate consideration of petitions. The proposed changes to standing orders are contained in annex A to the committee's report.
The first proposed new paragraph in standing orders says that the Public Petitions Committee should
"decide in a case of dispute whether a public petition is admissible".
The Public Petitions Committee takes that decision only in cases of dispute. Otherwise, submission of petitions is an administrative matter, with no action on the committee's part being necessary to get the petition into the system.
The Procedures Committee decided quite clearly that MSPs should not be allowed to submit petitions. There are other opportunities for us all to make nuisances of ourselves in a quite legitimate fashion. The proposed new wording for the standing orders refers to any person "other than a member" being able to pursue matters through petitions. That seems very reasonable. I think that petitions are for the general public to make their views known to the Parliament; they should not offer yet another way for members to make their views known. That is a clear and, I think, justifiable, decision.
I turn to the question of repeated petitions on the same subject. There was a view that any petition that covered ground that had already been covered recently should not be allowed. However, the committee felt that that was unfair on people whom we might call newcomers to the subject, who might genuinely feel keen on and concerned about the subject in question, and who might not have been aware of, or in any way involved with, the previous petition. We will vote today on a rule to cover a situation in which a recent petition has been produced by the same people as a previous one—the wording covers such a situation whether the petition is submitted by a person, a corporate body or an unincorporated association. If the same people repeat a petition that is almost identical, the submission will be considered vexatious and unreasonable. Such a petition should, therefore, not be allowed, but it must be submitted by the same people, on the same subject.
A change to the standing orders is proposed to give power to a committee—whether it is the Public Petitions Committee or the subject committee to which the Public Petitions Committee has passed the petition—to close petitions. That seems reasonable. There are times when the committee in question might have chased a hare industriously, but that hare has dropped dead and that has to be accepted—the committee cannot go any further with the subject. Committees must have the power to close petitions.
There are one or two other minor proposed changes, about translations and so on, which I think are quite sensible. To reiterate, the three main points are, first, that MSPs may not submit petitions; secondly, that the same people may not resubmit petitions on the same subject after a short interval; and thirdly, that the Public Petitions Committee will decide on the admissibility of petitions if there is a dispute, and any committee may close a petition.
In each case, standing orders will say that the committee must tell the petitioner what it has decided to do. Keeping people informed of decisions is important. Often, it is the lack of information rather than the decision that causes aggravation. The petitioner must be kept informed. The proposals that the Procedures Committee made before I came aboard are sensible and I am happy to recommend that the Parliament should support them.
I move,
That the Parliament notes the Procedures Committee's 6th Report, 2005 (Session 2), Admissibility and Closure of Public Petitions (SP Paper 420), and agrees that the changes to Standing Orders set out in Annexe A to the report be made with effect from 30 November 2005.
I thank the Procedures Committee. I have been a member of the Public Petitions Committee in both sessions of the Parliament, so I can see how it has developed and I understand the reason for the concerns that were expressed to the Procedures Committee. A lot more petitions are being lodged now, which shows what a success story the Public Petitions Committee is and how popular the petitions system has become.
I will concentrate on three main areas, one of which is different from those on which Donald Gorrie focused. First, I agree with the recommendation that MSPs should not submit petitions. Most of the MSPs with whom I have had contact agree that there are other ways in which we can pursue issues that are raised in petitions. After all, the committee is called the Public Petitions Committee and, like Donald Gorrie, I think that it should be for the public. Members have the privilege of being able to speak to petitions when they are lodged—petitioners do not always have that privilege—and when the committee considers them later. Petitions are sometimes sent to other committees to consider or for their information. The Public Petitions Committee should be left open to the public. I have no problem with the recommendation on the lodging of petitions by MSPs.
The second main area, which has caused concern to me and to some members of the public, is the resubmission of petitions. I welcome the Procedures Committee's recommendations, which are sensible. Some members of the public attempt to make unfair use of the system. However, although the system can be abused, we must ensure that we protect the rights of the majority of genuine petitioners. That is why the Procedures Committee's recommendation is absolutely correct. To refuse to admit a petition that is similar to one that has been lodged in the same session and closed in the past year, but only if it is lodged by or on behalf of the same individual or group, is a protective mechanism that goes some way towards ensuring that the process is open and transparent.
The third main area of concern is the admissibility of petitions, which I have raised a number of times. Petitioners have contacted me about the fact that their petition has been ruled inadmissible. I acknowledge the amount of work that the clerks do in contacting and advising petitioners about their petitions, but I worry that members will not be made aware of petitions that are deemed inadmissible unless the petitioners contact them. I seek assurance from the convener of the Procedures Committee or the convener of the Public Petitions Committee that when a clerk explains to someone that their petition is not admissible, they will also tell them that if they disagree with that recommendation, the Public Petitions Committee will make a final decision on admissibility. For the rule change to work properly and sensibly, the clerk must explain to the petitioner why the petition is inadmissible—I know that the clerks do that just now—and tell them that if they disagree with the decision, they are entitled to seek a final decision from the committee.
I have been approached, as have other MSPs, by petitioners asking about the admissibility of petitions. Would we be able to offer them advice? I congratulate the Procedures Committee on its sensible recommendations, but I have concerns and I would welcome clarification on whether, under the rule change, the clerk will have to tell petitioners that if they deem the information or advice that they have received to be incorrect, they can take the petition to the Public Petitions Committee, which has the ultimate responsibility in determining whether it is admissible.
In 2004, the Public Petitions Committee wrote to the Procedures Committee to request that changes be made to standing orders to prevent MSPs from lodging petitions, as it was felt that MSPs had sufficient opportunities to raise their concerns in Parliament by other means. In addition, the committee requested that the Procedures Committee consider the proposal that, once a petition had been closed, no further petition in the same or similar terms could be introduced in the same session of Parliament within one year of the date on which the petition had been closed.
In proposing those changes, the Public Petitions Committee did not want to limit the opportunity of members of the public to petition Parliament. However, we wanted to avoid the potential abuse of the system by a dissatisfied petitioner who resubmitted his or her petition and asked for it to be considered again. Of course, that practice is not widespread but, in the past, some discontented petitioners have resubmitted the same or similar petitions and that has clogged up the system.
Having dealt with more than 800 petitions since 1999, the committee felt that it was reasonable to tidy up the anomalies. The results of the Procedures Committee's consideration of the practices of the Public Petitions Committee are to be welcomed in that, by and large, our recommendations have been supported.
I welcome the recommendation of the Procedures Committee that MSPs should be prevented from lodging petitions. The committee also suggests that the resubmission of the same petition or a similar petition within one year should not be allowed, which concurs with the view of the Public Petitions Committee. In addition, the Procedures Committee suggests that, when the Public Petitions Committee or any other committee closes a petition, the reasons for closing the petition must be given to the petitioner. That is a sensible recommendation, which will strengthen the process. In fact, I thought that the clerks usually did that as a matter of courtesy. If not, it is certainly a good idea.
Regarding the admissibility of petitions, I, too, welcome the recommendation that only in disputed cases should the Public Petitions Committee be asked to rule on the admissibility or otherwise of petitions.
We in the Conservative party welcome the changes that are under discussion and I am pleased to see so many of my colleagues here to support that view. We believe that the proposals will enhance the effectiveness of this award-winning committee. The refinements of practice will also make better use of members' time, which is vital in the fast-moving environment in which we all work. We support the proposals and thank the Procedures Committee for its positive consideration and recommendations.
Before I am accused of bias, I point out that I will be calling three Labour members consecutively. However, they are all on their feet for different reasons.
I thank the Procedures Committee—especially Iain Smith, the former convener, Donald Gorrie, the present convener, and Karen Gillon, the deputy convener—for dealing with the matters that we brought to the committee's attention. I also thank the clerks of both committees, who helped to take the matter forward and arrived at such a good conclusion.
The Scottish Parliament's public petitions system is highly regarded, not only in Scotland but further afield. However, we cannot rest on our laurels, which is why the committee has consistently tried to improve practices and procedures and has been quick to embrace new technology and techniques, not least of which is the e-petitions system.
Things have moved on since 1999 and we now have six years' and 900 petitions' worth of experience under our belt. Although many changes and improvements have already been made to the process, it is time for us to consider a number of changes to the formal procedures to ensure that the public petitions system continues to develop.
I want to make it clear that, in welcoming the changes, the Public Petitions Committee does not seek to limit or hinder the opportunity for members of the public to petition the Parliament. Rather, the rolling programme of committee events that the Public Petitions Committee is currently holding promotes awareness of the public petitions system and provides practical guidance on petitioning.
While I am on that subject, I take the opportunity to respond to Sandra White's concerns. It has always been the intention of the Public Petitions Committee to work with a petitioner. Only rarely is a petition submitted that meets the requirements of the petitions system with regard to wording. The clerks work closely with the petitioner to try to find a form of words that will enable that petition to become admissible and often they take legal advice in their attempt to find that form of words. Only when the petitioner insists on lodging a petition that does not conform to the advice of the clerks and the lawyers does a petition become inadmissible.
We had to clarify that. I hope that Sandra White understands that the committee has never tried to prevent people from lodging petitions. We always attempt to ensure that a form of words is found to allow the petition to be heard. However, when a petitioner insists on submitting their petition in their own way and the petition is inadmissible, the committee has to say why the petition cannot be taken forward. In such cases, the clerks always provide the committee with a briefing that explains why the petition has to be deemed inadmissible.
The new criterion of admissibility will prevent the resubmission of petitions that are the same as, or similar to, a petition that has previously been lodged. That will empower the committee to address potential abuses of the system. Under the existing rules, a petitioner who is dissatisfied with the outcome of the Parliament's consideration of their petition can simply resubmit the same petition. Clearly, such abuse of the system has resource implications for the Public Petitions Committee and, indeed, for the wider Parliament. It can also falsely raise expectations and undermine the credibility of the system. The rule change will ensure that petitions that raise new issues or present fresh evidence will continue properly to be scrutinised by the committee, while those that are raised by so-called vexatious petitioners will be prevented from clogging up the system.
In responding to the consultation that the committee undertook when it considered the change to the rules, one petitioner commented that such a change might help the petitioner's case as it would provide time for reflection and time to gather new information.
The Public Petitions Committee is pleased to support the amendments to rule 15.4.1, which will prevent MSPs from lodging petitions. Unlike members of the public, MSPs have at their disposal many other mechanisms for raising issues of concern. The public petitions system should be the domain of members of the public. The rule change will ensure that members of the public, and not MSPs, set the agenda for the Public Petitions Committee.
The Public Petitions Committee welcomes the procedural changes that are recommended in the Procedures Committee's report. We believe that the changes will further improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the petitions system.
I am grateful for the opportunity to take part in the debate. It is great to see so many members taking such an interest in the Parliament's public petitions system.
The petitions system is one of the Parliament's most noted features. As the Public Petitions Committee's annual report for 2003-04 states:
"The Public Petitions Committee is widely regarded as one of the Scottish Parliament's key successes in terms of promoting accessibility and public involvement."
However, it is right for the Parliament to consider improvements to the way in which we handle petitions and to consider how we can consolidate and build on that success. The Executive believes that the proposals are sensible measures that will address the issues that have been identified. Therefore, I put on record the Executive's support for the proposals.
MSPs can use a number of methods that are not available to the public to raise matters in Parliament. It is right, therefore, that MSPs should use those methods and that the public petitions system should be limited to the general public.
I understand from the report that, in practice, the clerks already advise petitioners on admissibility. It is sensible that that system be formalised and that the Public Petitions Committee's role should be limited only to cases in which there is dispute.
Like both committees, I am concerned that the present rules allow individuals or organisations to submit repeatedly the same or similar unsuccessful petitions. That has the potential to clog up the system and to use valuable resources. I understand why the Public Petitions Committee wanted to ban the resubmission of such petitions within a calendar year. On balance, therefore, I favour the Procedures Committee's proposal to allow other petitioners to submit similar petitions. However, committees should use the express powers to close petitions to minimise the effort that is spent on such petitions, the subject matter of which may have recently been dealt with by Parliament. Any other approach could serve to raise unrealistic hopes in the petitioner and would use parliamentary resources on what may be a foregone conclusion. It follows, therefore, that I support the proposals for committees to be able to close petitions.
The Executive supports the Procedures Committee's proposal on the submission of petitions in any languages and the duty to report on individual petitions.
The proposed rule changes will increase the effectiveness of the public petitions process. I urge members to support the proposed amendments to standing orders so that we may continue our proud record of achievement of encouraging public participation in the political life of this country.
I call Karen Gillon to close for the committee and I ask members to be quiet, please.
I thank the Procedures Committee's clerks for their work on this report and the other report that we have debated. It cannot be easy to work with the vast range of views that Procedures Committee members have on these interesting and absorbing subjects, which I see members are all here to debate. I am glad to see them all; it is nice of them to join us, even at this late stage. Members are very welcome. If any Labour member wants to take my place on the committee, I will be happy to oblige.
The Public Petitions Committee brought the issue to the Procedures Committee. After some consideration and tweaking of the measures, we acceded to that committee's requests. On resubmission, we wanted to have safeguards to ensure that people were not excluded routinely but that, if an issue had essentially reached the end of its process, the process would not be restarted for the sake of it and because the answer was not the one that the petitioner wanted.
As members of the Parliament, we are afforded many opportunities and privileges. We can raise issues in a variety of ways. [Interruption.] I ask some Labour members to shut up—thank you. We should not take up the Public Petitions Committee's time with our own political interests. If members of our communities feel strongly about an issue, we should encourage and enable them to submit a petition on their own behalf or as a community. That is the right way for us to move forward.
I could speak for a considerable time on the subject, but I am aware that something else seems to be going on and that members want to speak about something else. In the interests of parliamentary unity, as long as members all vote for the motion, I will shut up now and let them get on with their other debates.