I do not know whether this has been mentioned in members' papers, but the petitioners have indicated that they wish no further action to be taken in relation to petition PE283. Of course, that does not mean that we have to take that course of action. The information is simply for members' guidance.
Official Report · Committee
Petitions
Organ Retention (PE283 and PE370)
Speakers
Choose an MSP to read only their contributions- Christine Grahame SNP 8
- Mike Rumbles LD 3
- Shona Robison SNP 1
- David Davidson Con 1
The record
14 contributionsLet us spend no more time on the petition then.
Fine. Does anyone have a dissenting view?
Members
link
No.
Are members agreed to take no further action on petition PE283?Members indicated agreement.
I seek members' comments on petition PE370, from the Guardian Angels.
As far as I understand it, the Parliament—certainly this committee—has no power to initiate the public inquiry that the petitioners are calling for.
That is true. It is rather strange that the petitioners want a public judicial inquiry, which seems to be a mixture of a public and a judicial inquiry.
So can we proceed with the petition?
All that we can do is call on the Executive to hold such an inquiry.
It would be useful to ask the Executive about the time scale for introducing any legislation on this matter. I am not clear in my own mind about that. It would certainly be very pertinent to the petitioners' concerns, although I know that it will not answer their call for a public inquiry. That said, knowing about the legislative timetable would be helpful to the committee.
I am advised that last week our clerking team sought a response from the Executive on that very matter, but we have not yet received it. I think that we should write to the Executive with a request for it to provide a time scale for introducing any legislation in this regard.
If we are doing that, I suggest that we lump all three petitions—PE283, PE370 and PE406—together. Although they are slightly different, they all relate to the same issue. Would that be possible?
In a letter to the committee, Miss Doig raised objections to her petition's being grouped under the heading of organ retention and removal. We should respect that.Are we agreed on the course of action that I have outlined?Members indicated agreement.
In this meeting
Everything on 7 Oct 2003 →- Scottish Parliament Health Committee Tuesday 7 October 2003 (Afternoon) Committee business · 1
- Item in Private Procedure · 1
- Subordinate Legislation Subordinate legislation · 2
- Petitions Petitions · 3
- Petitions Petitions · 10
- Petitions Petitions · 14
- Petitions Petitions · 8
- Petitions Petitions · 12
- Petitions Petitions · 3
- Petitions Petitions · 5
- Petitions Petitions · 7
- Petitions Petitions · 4
- Petitions Petitions · 8
- Petitions Petitions · 42
- Petitions Petitions · 12
- Petitions Petitions · 4
- Petitions Petitions · 5
- Petitions Petitions · 10
- Petitions Petitions · 3
- Petitions Petitions · 4
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.