Appendix 1: Letter from the Chair of the
Committee to the Chair of the Procedure Committee on Public petitions
Rt Hon Greg Knight, MP
Chairman, Procedure Committee
House of Commons
Consideration of petitions by select committees
At a recent meeting, the Communities and Local Government
Committee, which I chair, was asked to consider two petitions.
One was concerned with the future of the Haslar hospital site
in Hampshire; the other the safety of Lower Road bridge in Nash
Mills. These petitions appeared on our agenda under the resolution
of the House of 25 October 2007 because they had been sent to
the Department for Communities and Local Government for observations.
As a Committee, we of course accept the inherent
right of the public to petition the House in case of grievance.
We also accept the pragmatic arrangement by which the House transmits
petitions it receives to the relevant Government Department, which
is then expected to make observations thereon. However, the two
petitions which appeared on our recent agenda, together with many
of the other petitions which we have been asked to consider since
the House passed its resolution, have been concerned with matters
which are not rightfully for central Government to consider, but
for particular local authorities. We do not therefore consider
it appropriate that we should be expected to consider such petitions.
We sympathise with the goal of encouraging engagement
with the Parliamentary process, which we understand to have been
your Committee's motive in proposing to the House the procedure
agreed last October. However, we do not consider it to be helpful
to suggest, by referring a petition to a Select Committee, that
the House is taking meaningful action on a petition where a Committee
would not—indeed where it would be inappropriate for it
to—act. Indeed we consider that such a procedure is likely
to undermine public confidence in the process of Government and
in the role of the House and its Committees.
In this context I note your Committee's recommendation,
in its recent report on e-petitions, that such petitions "should
clearly and specifically state what action the petitioners desire
the House of Commons to take to remedy the matter about which
they are petitioning", and that "there should
be a mechanism within the system to allow a Member who has been
asked to facilitate a constituent's petition to respond that the
petition is unclear or misdirected and to offer instead to correspond
with the petitioner in order to bring the petition within these
tighter rules." I offer no comment at this stage about
the merits or otherwise of your proposed procedure for e-petitioning,
but this recommendation clearly has applicability in the context
of the current petitions procedure. If the rules for the presentation
of petitions—or even simply their application, given the
clear rule that "A petition to the House of Commons must
address a case over which the House has jurisdiction and must
request a redress which it is in the power of the House to provide"—were
to be tightened, presumptive petitioners could be clearly advised
that they would be better served by directing their campaign at
the body which had the power and the responsibility to address
the matter concerned, rather than wasting their effort petitioning
the House.
We appreciate that a further resolution of the House
would be required to address this issue, a remedy which it is
not within the power of your Committee to achieve. We trust nevertheless
that you will take these points into consideration in any further
examination, or review, of the procedures for handling petitions
to the House.
I am copying this letter to the Leader of the House.
Dr Phyllis Starkey, MP
Chair, Communities and Local Government Committee
16 June 2008
| 
