Item 2 is the paper dealing with the progress of petitions that have been considered by the committee.I do not know whether anyone noticed the note about the petition from the Carbeth Hutters Association, which called for legislation to provide security of tenure and rights of access for those who own property built on leased land. Robin Harper sent an e-mail to say that a third hut in Carbeth had been set on fire.
Official Report · Committee
Progress
Speakers
Choose an MSP to read only their contributions- John McAllion Lab 12
- Christine Grahame SNP 6
- Sandra White SNP 4
- Pauline McNeill Lab 3
- Helen Eadie Lab 1
- Phil Gallie Con 1
The record
27 contributionsWe all received that e-mail. Do we have dates for when the petitions were submitted? I might lose track of developments with the petitions as time passes. It would make sense to have an idea of the time scale involved.
The clerk has a record of the dates when the petitions were submitted.
That would help us to keep track of their progress. I was present when the Justice and Home Affairs Committee considered the petition from the Carbeth hutters, so I am aware of the time scale on that one but, as the months pass, it would be useful to know how long petitions have been in the system.
link
While we are talking about trying to track how long it takes to deal with petitions, I would like to raise a point about petition 13, from the Stracathro staff action committee. When was that petition submitted? The Health and Community Care Committee will consider it on 24 November, which seems rather a long time after we referred it to that committee.
The date is not available at the moment. There has not yet been a report on the Tayside review of acute services, which is relevant to the Stracathro case. I do not think that the report will be out by 24 November.
link
This is an important point and I would like to return to it at another time. Members have mentioned the Carbeth hutters' petition, which we referred to the Justice and Home Affairs Committee. That committee—which I think is the busiest committee—considered the petition almost immediately and has already heard evidence on the matter. That is a good example of how the petitions process can work. It is a success story.
The dates when petitions were submitted will be made available to the committee, so that we can see how the petitions are progressing.
We need to know when the petition was received, when it was referred to the subject committee and when a report was made on it. I do not know how the clerks table it, but it should be in an easily understood form.
I would like to make a point on another matter. I do not mean to suggest that the Parliament should not take action with regard to Stracathro, but I know that most of the health boards in Scotland are having discussions about situations that are similar to that which faces that hospital. If we are not careful, we could be perceived as trying to suck up powers from organisations such as the health boards. I am not saying that that view should be adopted on my say so, but I am nervous about the situation. We are having this discussion in our own areas, whereas perhaps we should leave such matters for determination by local people. Perhaps that is controversial.
We are not trying to resolve anything locally. We are simply saying that, if a petition is submitted, it must be dealt with by the appropriate committee. That committee must consider whether the matter is to be determined locally or by the Scottish Parliament.
I pick up Pauline's point. Perhaps she feels, as I do, that the Justice and Home Affairs Committee dealt quickly with the issue of the Carbeth hutters. However, if a petition takes three months to be dealt with by a committee, is it within the remit of this committee to write to that committee? I think that that was what Pauline meant. We might say to that committee, "We passed this matter to you on such and such a date, but you have taken four or five months to respond." Is it within the remit of this committee to do that?
We can do what we want, but the response that we receive from the committees is critical. The matter was raised at the conveners liaison group, and there was resistance to the idea that this committee should lay down a timetable.
It is not laying down a timetable; it is showing concern.
At that meeting, it was eventually decided that committees would not agree to a two or three-month turnround for petitions that were referred to them, but that the clerks of the individual committees would consult each other, to ensure that a response was given within a reasonable time. It is for us to judge what is unreasonable. That is the purpose of this part of the agenda. If we have information about how long a petition has been lying on the table, receiving no response, we can take up the matter.
That is fine. I just wondered whether that was in our remit.
The clerk reminds me that, even today, if committee members are unhappy about the Stracathro situation, for example, we can write to the Health and Community Care Committee and say that that committee must consider the case sooner.
I think that the Stracathro petition arrived at the end of August. It was not long ago. I remember speaking to Andrew Welsh, as the matter was raised at Westminster.
It was given quite a low number—PE13—so it cannot have been a recent petition.
link
If that is the case, it would be in the public's interest for us to say that we would like to know why the issue is so far down the agenda. We do not want to set a precedent for dealing with petitions last. If we are not pursuing the matter, what is the point of this committee? I am not suggesting that we should write to the Health and Community Care Committee; I am suggesting that we should keep an eye on such situations. That must be part of our role. Who will represent the public interest when a petition is submitted, if not us? We will receive responses from committee conveners who are overloaded with work. I understand that. However, it is part of our role to keep an eye on the way in which committees deal with petitions.
The clerk advises me that the Stracathro petition was first discussed on 21 September.
We are told that petition 13 will be considered on 24 November. Have the petitioners been advised of that?
The Health and Community Care Committee will have contacted them.
They should know. There is an old lawyer's dictum that says that the client must be told what is happening, even if nothing is happening. If there is a delay and the petition is with a committee for too long, we should be able to write to a petitioner to say that we are concerned that the matter has not been dealt with, and that we have contacted the convener of that committee. That would give the impression that we are monitoring—I hate this word, but I shall use it—in a proactive way.
I agree. The monitoring role of this committee is far more important than our role in referring a petition to the Executive or the committees. We must ensure that something is done in those circumstances. At the next meeting, all the dates that have been requested today will be available, so that it will be much clearer whether a petition has been lying around for a considerable time. It is the role of this committee to chase up such petitions. I anticipate clashes between this committee and most other committees in the Scottish Parliament. Other committees will not like being forced to pay attention to petitions, but it is our job to ensure that they are.
We are not allowed to be controversial or clash with other members in this Parliament.
That concludes discussion of that item.
In this meeting
Everything on 2 Nov 1999 →- Scottish Parliament Public Petitions Committee Tuesday 2 November 1999 (Afternoon) Petitions · 2
- Petitions Petitions · 114
- Progress Committee business · 27
- Public Guidance Committee business · 60
- Convener's Report Procedure · 7
- Any other business Committee business · 5
The type of each item (debate, statement, questions, members’ business and so on) and the times shown are worked out by this site from headings, the chair’s opening words and the Official Report’s running timestamps. They are not the Parliament’s own classification. Text: the Scottish Parliament Official Report.