Public Petitions Committee

Meeting date: Tuesday, March 8, 2011

Official Report 601KB pdf

---

Legacy Paper

Our final item is consideration of our legacy paper.

I would like to know how many petitions we are handing over to the successor committee. This committee received 122 petitions from our predecessor committee and I just want to know whether we beat that or were well below it.

I will ask the clerk to say a couple of words about how we compare in that regard. I am relatively new to this committee, so it would be interesting to get a brief view from him on that matter.

This committee compares favourably, if I can be so bold as to say that. Before the start of this meeting, the committee had flagged up 26 current petitions that would go into the legacy paper and a further 17 have been added as a result of this meeting, so, if my arithmetic is correct, the committee will leave 43 current petitions under the legacy arrangement.

I do not yet know the number of new petitions that will go forward to the next committee, but I can say that it is very low at this point. We are working on a number of proposed petitions, and a few have gone forward to the lodging stage. However, I am not sure whether the number of new petitions will be as high as 37, which was the number that went forward from the session 2 committee to the session 3 committee. The number of current petitions that will go forward is 43, compared with the 85 that this committee inherited.

Are there any other comments or issues to raise on the legacy paper?

The clerks will forgive me if I point out a typo, because it is important that they pick it up. I cannot see a page number, so I am struggling, but I point the clerk to where the paper states:

“The Session 4 Committee may wish to consider its approach to the scheduling of petitions.”

Under the heading “New petition-only and current petition-only meetings”, the paper refers to

“only new petitions and only current petitions.”

I think that it should be “or” rather than “and”, because an either/or meaning is intended. As it stands, the meaning is the reverse of that.

Thank you. I am sure that the clerks will find that and make it make sense.

There is another small typo. Under the heading “Chamber time”, one of the bullet points refers to PE1150, but the paragraph below incorrectly refers to the petition as PE150.

I agree with the action that is suggested at the bottom of page 3 that the successor committee

“may wish to consider adopting a timetable and strategy for external meetings.”

Our series of external meetings was successful, took the Parliament out across the country, allowed folk who live in more remote areas of the country to have direct input and made the Parliament more accessible than it usually is to them. That was a good thing and I agree with that action entirely.

It is important to acknowledge that, as well as taking us to parts of Scotland where people find it difficult to keep in touch with the Parliament, external meetings took us to parts of Scotland where people have traditionally not had much engagement with the Parliament. The visit to Easterhouse is one example. It is important to recognise the need to keep in touch with a variety of communities throughout Scotland.

On PE1056, on deep vein thrombosis, the paper says:

“The Committee agreed to invite the Session 4 committee to ???”

I just wondered about that.

You closed that petition today—no, sorry, that is PE1065. PE1056 is the petition on deep vein thrombosis. The paper says:

“The Committee agreed (25 January 2011) to invite the Session 4 committee to consider whether it wishes to seek an update from the Scottish Government on what impact the new leaflets, information and SIGN Guideline is having. It may also wish, in the light of this update, to consider referring the petition to the next health committee.”

I realise that I had not put that action in.

Throughout the paper, it says “Fergus to insert text” but it did not say that in that paragraph. I was just slightly worried.

He has inserted it, you will be pleased to hear.

It is there now.

We will clearly not finish the paper today, although we will have to agree it today. Will you put out a final, final draft tomorrow or another time—I am not pressing you—and will we get the opportunity thereafter to register by e-mail anything that happens to concern us particularly? I do not suppose that there will be anything, but it might be helpful if we had that chance.

We were planning on sending it out tonight. The intention is to add the 17 petitions that you agreed to put into the legacy paper today and get a further draft to you. If the committee is happy to agree that by correspondence, we can handle it in that way.

I notice that the original draft that you gave us of the annual report includes a list of the ministers that we have seen. Did we not see the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing this session?

You did, yes.

Well, she is not in that list. It is not the original draft; it might be the second draft.

You are right.

Well spotted.

I think that it was on PE1108, but I could not swear to it.

Is it agreed that the amendments be made to the legacy paper and the final draft go round to members for agreement by e-mail?

Members indicated agreement.

Do we also agree that the paper will subsequently be published?

Members indicated agreement.

That concludes our meeting. It is the final meeting of the committee in this parliamentary session, so I thank and commend you all for your participation in the committee’s work.

Before you close the meeting, convener, it would be fitting to commend you and the deputy convener for your stewardship of the Public Petitions Committee. Both of you are going on to other fields after the election on 5 May, but I think that all colleagues would agree that you make a formidable team and should be congratulated on the contribution that you have made not only to the committee but during your 12 years in the Scottish Parliament.

Members: Hear, hear.

Thank you very much.

Thank you very much. That is much appreciated.

I put on record our collective appreciation of the clerking team, without whom, it would be fair to say, we might not be sure which field we were in even on a good day. They have worked across an enormous number of subjects with exemplary equanimity.

Members: Hear, hear.

On behalf of the clerking team—me, Franck David, Alison Wilson and Eileen Martin—and Diarmid Mogg and Stuart Kay from the official report, I thank Nigel Don for the comments that he made. It has genuinely been a fantastic committee to clerk and I thank all committee members for their support at each meeting.

Is anyone else feeling emotional?

No.

It is just because it is your birthday, Anne.

I thank members for attending. It would be good if the committee could stay on to discuss a couple of housekeeping issues.

Meeting closed at 17:46.