Official Report 218KB pdf
The next item is responses to petitions that the committee has previously received, on which an additional paper has been circulated to members.
The next response that we have received is in relation to PE248 from Robert Durward, which calls on Parliament to introduce legislation to compel slower drivers to use passing places. We passed the petition to the Minister for Transport and the Environment and copied it to the UK Minister for Transport.
I will have driven more than 100 miles to get here and back today and, on the way here, I was stuck behind many slow moving vehicles, not the fewest of which were tractors. I must declare an interest, as I have been very frustrated by slow moving traffic.
John Scott is right. One does get frustrated behind tractors and everything else, but public transport is available from Ayr and there is a good train service from Ayr to Glasgow.
I was not in Ayr.
Even if you were somewhere else, public transport is available. In all seriousness, how would the proposal be policed? That is my problem with the petition.
I am somewhere between the two views. I realise that it is difficult to legislate but, as John Scott said, drivers become genuinely frustrated, which can be just as bad as driving at excessive speed. The committee considers petitions that deal with various problems on the roads. We talked about whether there should be a legal requirement to pull in when vehicles carrying blue flashing lights appear. We did not think that that would be practical, but there is a need for road awareness. This may be pushing our remit a bit, but I wonder whether we could tell the Minister for Transport that petitions keep coming in on issues that we think would justify a road awareness campaign, rather than legislation.
The DETR's response suggested that it is not practicable to make pulling into passing places a legal requirement, because a driver could be prosecuted for not pulling over when he might argue that it was not safe to do so. It is hard for courts to decide on a legal remedy. Pauline makes a good point, however. We could refer the matter back to the minister to ask whether an awareness campaign is planned by the Government.
I would accept that as a worthwhile suggestion in the first instance. However, I do not think that it will stop drivers who are predisposed to be selfish in their use of the road.
Do you think that there is a specific issue about tractors, John?
Yes, but there is also an issue about caravans. The serious issue is that not enough passing places are provided for drivers of such vehicles to draw off. There is a need to create more passing places—that is the root of the problem. That is why I think that the Transport and the Environment Committee might want to consider the matter. That committee could suggest to the minister that money should be laid aside to ease traffic flow and thereby reduce the risk of accidents. Many accidents are caused by frustrated drivers trying to overtake in unsuitable places. Such accidents might never have happened if the car in front had pulled off in the first place.
I am advised to remind members that legislation to compel slow drivers is a matter that is reserved for Westminster.
Now you tell us.
However, we could, in the first instance, contact the Minister for Transport to ask about a road awareness campaign and whether there are any plans to increase the number of passing places. Based on her response, we could consider whether we need then to pass the petition to the Transport and the Environment Committee. Is that agreed?
The next response is to petition PE263, from Ms Joan Higginson. The petition called on Parliament to investigate the handling of issues that were raised in previous petitions on the construction of the A701 and to present any recommendations to the Scottish Executive to ensure that individuals and local communities have input into future transport infrastructure proposals.
The final response relates to PE265, from Mr George McAulay, on behalf of the UK Men's Movement on the subject of false rape allegations. Members will recall that we agreed to seek further information from the Minister for Justice on the issue of anonymity of both victim and accused in rape cases. We have received a response from the Scottish Executive indicating that the rights of all people who are suspected of criminal offences are safeguarded by, among other things, the requirement that criminal proceedings should not be instituted unless the following two conditions are fulfilled: that there is a sufficiency of evidence—in Scotland that requires corroboration; and that it is the public interest to prosecute. Those safeguards ensure that criminal proceedings cannot be instituted for malicious or frivolous reasons. The Executive also states that there is a clear distinction between the accused and the victim because the accused is on trial. It is the identity of the alleged offender and the details of their offence, not the identity of the victim, that are important so that justice is not only done, but seen to be done.
I am not satisfied that saying that the person who is accused can be identified in the press does not contravene the European convention on human rights, given that such a person is innocent until proven guilty. Although I have no truck with the rest of the petition, I do not want to leave that issue until it is exhausted. I want to know whether the Executive is satisfied that the relevant articles of ECHR do not mean that the accused has the right to remain anonymous. The problem is that in some cases the victim is identified through identification of the accused.
I would be happy for the response and petition to be passed to the Justice and Home Affairs Committee. However, that committee should take particular note of the Executive letter from George Burgess, because he makes the point clearly that there is no reason why the accused in a rape trial should have a greater right to anonymity than the accused in any other legal proceedings. That is a valid point. I do not think that the case has been made that somebody who is falsely accused of rape should have greater rights to anonymity than any others who are accused of a criminal offence.
We could say that everybody should have the right to anonymity. However, as we know from our visits to prisons around the country, sex offenders are separated from other prisoners and are treated differently by society. I do not feel too strongly about the matter.
John Scott and Pauline McNeill have made valid points. Somebody could go to the European Parliament, but as John has said, there is no reason why one set of accused people should be separated from the others. However, as Pauline McNeill says, such prisoners are treated differently. How far do we take this?
There are two options; we could pass the petition to the Justice and Home Affairs Committee and ask it to pursue further the question of anonymity for accused people or we could write to the minister. Would members prefer to send the material to the Justice and Home Affairs Committee and ask it to consider further the question of anonymity of accused people?
Previous
New Petitions