Select Committee on Procedure Written Evidence


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.

    —  16 have been closed.

    —  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 issues9 18.4%
Other local authority action7 14.3%
Change in legislation4 8.2%
Transport612.2%
Health816.3%
Environment48.2%
Education48.2%
Other714.3%


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


 
previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2008
Prepared 6 April 2008