Politics

Scottish Review : Walter Humes

Walter Humes 22 October 2013

Listen to this article

Make Bill buy a round

COMMENT II
Walter Humes on the absurdities of
parliamentary petitions

If you were to petition either the Scottish or UK Parliament on an issue about which you felt passionately, what cause would you choose to champion? Joanna Lumley’s vigorous campaign on behalf of the Gurkhas has shown the potential of civic activism in the face of government evasion and indifference. It is doubtful whether the notion of entrusting our elected representatives to act honourably was ever entirely credible, but the recent history of political life in Britain has highlighted the importance of alternative ways of making the democratic voice heard.
     When the Scottish Parliament was first established there was commitment from politicians of all parties to ensure that its proceedings were accessible, responsive and accountable to the people of Scotland. The opportunity for citizens to present petitions on matters that concern them is one expression of these principles. These can be in either paper or electronic form and can be viewed at:
http://epetitions.scottish.parliament.uk/
     The first petition was lodged in June 1999 and called for the introduction of prayers to the proceedings of Parliament. A decision was duly reached to hold multi-denominational prayers. Other petitions which have produced positive results have included a call for an official apology for the abuse of children in care and a demand for consistency in funding cancer treatment drugs.
     Petitions can be lodged by individuals, community councils, and by interest and pressure groups. There are, however, restrictions. The Public Petitions Committee ‘has no remit to intervene in the operational decisions or actions of other public bodies in Scotland such as health boards or local authorities’. It is expected that other routes will have been tried before submitting a petition and abusive or vexatious petitions will be rejected. The committee meets fortnightly and petitioners are able to present oral evidence in support of their case. Topics addressed by current petitions include faith schools, police officers who have criminal convictions, and funding for the voluntary sector.
     At UK level, petitions are dealt with by the Prime Minister’s office. Information about methods of submission and current topics can be found at:
http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/
     Perhaps unsurprisingly, the petition attracting the most signatures at the moment calls on the Prime Minister to resign. One proposing that no arrangements should be made for a state funeral for Baroness Thatcher is also very popular. It has to be said that the No 10 site is much more fun than the Scottish one because it contains rejected petitions. These include requests to ‘grant independence to Meadowpark Street in Glasgow’; ‘to build a very noisy prison for noisy and inconsiderate neighbours’; ‘to rid our streets of chavs once and for all’; and (presumably penned after a night in the pub) ‘to make Bill buy a round’. One petitioner, with remarkable prescience in advance of the swine flu scare, proposed ‘to make it illegal to pick your nose in public’. Another rejected petition proposed ‘to put a tax on silly petitions’. Perhaps the Chancellor, Alastair Darling, missed a chance there to raise much-needed revenue. The commonest reasons for rejecting petitions are that they are offensive, contain commercial endorsements, or are ‘intended to be humorous’. However, the fact that the humorous ones are at least accessible on the website suggests that someone in No 10 (I would guess not Gordon) appreciates the therapeutic value of laughter.
     Petitions to the Prime Minister remain online for 12 months and, if they attract more than 500 signatures, the relevant government department has to make a response. It would be interesting to conduct a study to discover how many actually make a difference to legislation, policy or practice. One petition that is unlikely to lead to change, since it would inflame the already sensitive relationship between Holyrood and Westminster, proposes ‘to prosecute any person or organisation that promotes the breakup of the UK, including independence for Wales or Scotland…under the Treason Act of 1531’. When I last looked it had managed to attract only five signatures.

Realweescotsky
18.06.09
Issue no 112