National Assembly for Wales' Petitions
Committee (P30)
I am writing to you as the chair of the National
Assembly for Wales' Petitions Committee with some early observations
of the developing petitions system in Wales, that I hope you will
find useful in your deliberations.
We see our petitions system as having a key
role to play in increasing accessibility of the public to the
National Assembly for Wales (NAfW), and e-petitions particularly
as providing an additional tool to help widen participation. We
intend to launch our e-petitions system by May this year. The
process of considering available options for developing an e-petitions
system, in particular developing appropriate guidance, has identified
broader issues about the "petitions system" in Wales
that first need to be resolved.
This letter therefore outlines the background
to the petitions system in Wales and how it has developed since
its inception last summer; the fundamental issues we have identified
and our current thinking on these; and how we intend to shape
the system in the future, including discussion of our proposed
e-petitions system.
BACKGROUND
The Government of Wales Act 2006 established
a new committee structure including for the first time a Petitions
Committee to provide the public with a direct and easily accessible
route to engage with democracy in Wales.
Our Standing Orders under the 2006 Act provides
basic rules for the National Assembly for Wales to consider petitions.
[14]Specifically,
the admissibility of petitions is considered by the Presiding
Officer, and requires that petitions:
— Ask the Assembly to do something
that it has the power to do.
— Have at least 10 signatures (or be
supported by a corporate body).
— Are not offensive/defamatory.
— Are not the same as/substantially
similar to a petition presented less than a year ago.
CURRENT POSITION
The Petitions Committee had limited publicity
when it was first formed, although awareness was raised to a sufficient
level for us to start receiving petitions.
In practice, the general admissibility of petitions
was delegated by the Presiding Officer to the Clerk to the Committee
on the understanding that the admissibility criteria in Standing
Orders were not used bureaucratically to limit the number and
scope of petitions submitted. Only borderline submissions have
been referred to the Presiding Officer for a decision.
Workload
Since the Petitions Committee was established:
49 petitions have been submitted, [15]of
which:
— 3 have been deemed inadmissible.
— 5 are currently awaiting determination
for admissibility.
— 25 are currently "open"
and progressing through the system.
Emerging observations
Clear patterns are beginning to emerge with
respect to petition subjects which are broadly categorised in
Annex 1. Early observations highlight:
— 33% of petitions received
oppose local authority actions and decisions.
— 8% of petitions have called
for a change in legislation (generally the introduction of new
legislation using the new powers conferred by the Government of
Wales Act 2006).
— Health, environmental and education
issues feature prominently (16%, 8% and 8% respectively).
Outcomes and early conclusions
It was not clear when the committee was established
how the public would react to this new process, and what the outcomes
might be. An issue raised in the Petitions Committee can be passed
to a scrutiny committee and could ultimately result in legislative
competence or new legislation; however, a more likely outcome
is for a petition to receive a fair and open public hearing before
it is closed. This is a positive result that often exposes and
clarifies evidence; having the effect of raising public and political
awareness of an issue and providing satisfaction for the petitioners.
In some cases, evidence highlighted by the process provides petitioners
with further options to seek a resolution to their grievance or
proposal. Annex 2 to this letter provides you with some case study
summaries of successful petitions.
It is clear to us there is a lack of public
understanding of the role and remit of the Committee, highlighted
by:
— Confusion between the Welsh Assembly
Government (WAG) and the legislature (NAfW) and their respective
roles.
— The proportion of petitions we have
received seeking to redress local authority decisions.
— Confusion over devolution and where
lines are drawn between the WAG and UK Government, and indeed
between NAfW and UK Parliament.
Regarding the first point, we have a lot of
work to do together with the Assembly Government in improving
engagement with citizens and increasing public awareness and understanding
of our respective roles.
Regarding the second and third points, the Committee
has little scope of direct action available to it in handling
these petitions, but can ask WAG to justify its policies governing
local authorities and the planning system. Likewise, a fraction
of petitions ask us to take action on reserved matters which is
clearly not within our gift.
The principle of subsidiarity is therefore a
key concern for my committee and needs to be explored further
through debate and agreement with the tiers of democracy in which
we are embedded.
THE FUTURE
OF PETITIONS
Although the sample size is small, and it is
early to be drawing conclusions about the scope of petitions being
presented to us, public awareness of the system will increase
further over the coming months, in particular with the introduction
of e-petitions which will be publicly launched and will make the
process quicker and easier for people to organise petitions, collect
signatures and submit their petitions online.
The principle of subsidiarity
Understanding our position within the democratic
system is essential if the NAfW petitions' system is to be efficient
and effective. We intend to open discussions with the Welsh Local
Government Association (WLGA); with UK Parliament, hence this
approach to you; and the European Parliament. We will seek agreement
on what is appropriate for us to consider through our petitions
system, and be clear about what is not appropriate for us to consider.
Where we are not the appropriate body to handle a petition, we
will be as helpful as possible in signposting petitioners to the
most relevant institution. It is therefore essential that we have
a good understanding of how petitions will be handled at each
democratic level.
Developing an e-petitions system
In developing a world class e-petitions system,
we are learning from current best practice, and particularly recognise
the importance of making our petitions system as interactive as
possible, for example, providing the facility to leave comments
or add to a discussion board. In the UK there is an established
e-petitions system in the Scottish Parliament and there are notable
local examples of e-petitions systems, in particular in Bristol
and Kingston-upon-Thames local authorities. We are liaising with
these institutions to learn from their experience. The European
Parliament also has an e-petitions system, and my committee will
be visiting them in early April.
When we introduce e-petitions, we will clearly
have to tailor it to the requirements of Wales, particularly being
mindful of the bi-lingual requirements of the Welsh Language Act,
as well as seeking to encourage participation from those who appear
to be less engaged.
The e-petition system is an important part of
the Assembly's work in ensuring that it is accessible and transparent.
The Assembly is developing an information campaign to communicate
how the petition system can be used, and to explain the opportunities
and limitations of the system.
We would welcome further dialogue with you on
developing appropriate cooperation.
Val Lloyd
Chair, Petitions Committee
February 2008
Annex 1
| Petition category
|
Number of petitions | Percentage of total
(this Assembly)
|
| Local authority planning issues | 9
| 18.4% |
| Other local authority action | 7
| 14.3% |
| Change in legislation | 4 |
8.2% |
| Transport | 6 | 12.2%
|
| Health | 8 | 16.3%
|
| Environment | 4 | 8.2%
|
| Education | 4 | 8.2%
|
| Other | 7 | 14.3%
|
| | |
Annex 2
CASE STUDY SUMMARIES OF SUCCESSFUL PETITIONS
PETITION TO
RE -OPEN
CARNO RAILWAY
STATION
Background
This petition called on the Welsh Assembly Government to
re-open Carno Station. A station had existed on the line, but
closed on the 1960s. Petitioners observed that the Cambrian line
from Shrewsbury to Aberystwyth passing through Carno was the longest
stretch of line without an intermediate station in Wales (at 22
miles long between Caersws and Machynlleth), and highlighted potential
benefits including decreased car use for medium and long distance
journeys.
Process
The Committee considered the petition and referred it to
the Enterprise and Learning Committee which met in Carno and listened
to the case of the Carno Action Group, and taking evidence from
key stakeholders including: Powys County Council, Network Rail,
Arriva Trains Wales, and the Welsh Assembly Government. The E&L
Committee evaluated the evidence and laid a report before the
Assembly making recommendations to the Government.
Outcome
The Welsh Assembly Government responded to the E&L Committee's
report. It suggested petitioners work with the regional transport
consortium to ensure the station would meet technical criteria
and be included as a priority in the forthcoming regional transport
plan.
PETITION AGAINST
AN APPLICATION
FROM REDROW
HOMES TO
DISCHARGE SEWAGE
INTO THE
NANT CYLLA
RIVER
Background
The petitioners opposed the application made by Redrow Homes
to discharge emergency sewage into the Nant Cylla River which
flows through Ystrad Mynach.
The petitioners took a range of actions to object to the
proposals, and the reasons for their objections, including writing
to the Environment Agency setting out their objections to the
application.
The petitioners requested that the National Assembly for
Wales call in the application for determination. They believed
that there was a bias within the Environment Agency in favour
of allowing the application and they therefore could not make
an objective, impartial assessment.
Process
Whilst the petition primarily related to a local issue under
consideration by the Environment Agency, the petitioners also
expressed concern regarding the general principle of emergency
discharge of sewage into rivers.
The Committee invited the petitioners in to give evidence
and explain their case.
The Committee also sought clarification from the Assembly
Government and the Environment Agency (who presented evidence
at a subsequent meeting) to clarify their policy on emergency
discharge of sewers.
Outcome
Despite the petition topic being a local issue, the Committee
focused on what it had the power to do and scrutinised the Environment
Agency's emergency discharge of sewage policy, concluding it was
insufficient. The chair brought this to the attention of the relevant
Minister who confirmed the Environment Agency would be asked to
update its guidance on this matter.
During this process the Environment Agency informed us that
Redrow Homes had withdrawn their application for emergency sewage
discharge into the river.
PETITION AGAINST
THE CHANGING
OF A
SCHOOL NAME
FROM YSGOL
GYFUN RHYDFELEN
TO YSGOL
GYFUN GARTH
OLWYG
Background
The petitioners opposed the decision taken by Rhondda Cynon
Taff County Borough Council to change the name of Ysgol Gyfun
Rhydfelen to Ysgol Gyfun Gath Olwg following its relocation to
a new site. The petitioners stated that the council took the decision
against the will of parents, pupils, staff and school governors.
A name change came about when the school was moved two miles
to a new campus. The Local Education Authority imposed a name
change and did not consult with school governors.
There was historical significance attached to the school's
name, being the first Welsh language secondary school in South
Wales. Primarily the school argued that this heritage and the
positive "brand" association with the school's name
would be lost with a name change, and that the process used by
the LEA to change the name had contravened the relevant guidance.
Process
Petitioners submitted detailed written evidence which was
considered by the Committee, and led to them presenting oral evidence
in Committee. Petitioners including school pupils attended committee
whenever this issue was being discussed, and were involved in
the oral presentation.
Outcome
Evidence emerged that although the authority to change the
school's name ultimately lay with the LEA, the process that had
been followed did not comply with Welsh Assembly Government guidance
to schools, which was at odds with the relevant legislation. This
was brought to the government's attention and has resulted in
the guidance being withdrawn and updated to compliment the legislation.
Although the school name was not reinstated, significant
evidence came to light that would be useful to the school in progressing
their grievance through other channels. We received feedback that
they were pleased with the fair and open public hearing they had
received by the committee.
14
Standing Order 28: Public Petitions (http://www.assemblywales.org/bus-docs-third-standingorders.pdf) Back
15
At 22 February 2008. Back
| 
