Official Report 239KB pdf
Good morning everyone, and welcome to the Public Petitions Committee's 17th meeting this year. As usual, we have a busy agenda. We have received apologies from Rosie Kane and I am advised that Jackie Baillie has a clash with another committee meeting this morning, although she will be here as soon as that meeting is over.
A90 (Laurencekirk/Marykirk Junction) (PE778)
Item 1 on our agenda is new petitions, the first of which is PE778. The petitioner, Jill Campbell, calls on Parliament to urge the Executive to upgrade the Laurencekirk/Marykirk junction of the A90. Jill Campbell is here to give a brief statement in support of her petition. She is accompanied by Norman Banski. Welcome to the committee. You have three minutes, after which we will ask questions.
On behalf of the people of south Mearns and north Angus, I thank the committee for taking the time to consider our petition. The petition began in anger and confusion—anger at yet another life lost, and confusion as to why nothing had been done to make the junction safer. In the past five years, there have been five fatalities, 29 reportable accidents and 16 reported injuries. The reality for us is that five people have died and two unborn babies have also been lost. There have been countless collisions and near misses. People have been shocked and injured, families devastated and a community has been affected by yet more tragedy. A friend of mine who witnessed the latest fatality wrote:
What is the population of Laurencekirk?
I think that it has a population of just over 2,000 people.
The issue affects more than just the population of Laurencekirk. We have calculated that there are probably about 20,000 people within a 10-mile radius of the junction. Laurencekirk itself is quite small, but the hinterland that feeds the junction is large; it takes in Montrose as well.
By asking how many people lived in Laurencekirk, I was trying to get a feel for the number of fatalities that the lady mentioned. If I have ever requested a council to upgrade a road, to put in lights or to reduce the amount of traffic, it has been normal practice for the council to ask how many fatalities there have been in the area. I was just trying to gauge how the five recent deaths, as well as the injuries, related to the population of what is a small village. That is why I asked how many folk there are in Laurencekirk. I thank you for that information.
Given the number of signatures that you have collected, the petition is obviously very significant. What remedial works, if any, have been carried out at the junction and what works are planned in the near future?
On recent safety measures, anti-skid slipways have been installed, along with two signs that say, "Cross with care", which face both entrances—that on the Marykirk side and that on the Laurencekirk side. Other than that, nothing has been done.
Our papers mention a grade-separated junction. Are there any plans for such a junction?
There are no such plans that we are aware of. That is what we are seeking.
What other elected representatives have you involved in your campaign?
As well as grass-roots support at community council level, we have support from Aberdeenshire Council and from our local representatives in the Scottish Parliament, three of whom are with us today. We have support from two local members of Parliament at Westminster and from the relevant member of the European Parliament. Our support is cross-party and extends from the grass roots to the highest levels.
I am trying to get a picture of what the junction is like. I am always concerned about traffic queuing on the outside of dual carriageways to turn right off the dual carriageway. Is that the type of junction that we are talking about, or are we talking about a crossroads?
It is a staggered crossroads.
It is almost a crossroads. The junction is where the A937 crosses the A90. The stagger is a matter of a few yards rather than tens or hundreds of yards. The slipways tend to be a car's width and the cars tend to block people's view. In just over an hour on the Saturday after the fatal accident that stirred the petition, the police found 63 speeding drivers, four of whom were travelling at more than 100mph.
Is the area covered by speed cameras?
The nearest speed camera is about 3 or 4 miles south of the junction and there is another about 6 miles north of it.
Such safety measures might not have any impact on the number of fatalities, because the cars would already be travelling at fairly high speeds.
That is right. The volume of traffic coming out from the junctions is also a problem. There are more than five haulage companies in the Laurencekirk area, all of which use the junction. I went down to Montrose last Friday and counted 21 cars waiting to use the junction behind a lorry that was waiting to come out. That was during peak time.
I take it that Laurencekirk and Marykirk are connected, but that a person must cross the A90 to get from one to the other?
Yes. Marykirk is the first village that a person will come to on the road, which really serves Montrose beyond it. Montrose is the next major town.
So we are talking about a vital junction that allows people from a more rural area to travel to a more populated centre.
Yes, but many people from Montrose who work in and travel to Aberdeen now choose to come up the A90 at Laurencekirk instead of using the coast road, because they can get on to the dual carriageway faster.
It is a commuter junction.
It is.
In your discussions with the local authority, has the local authority given any indication that it planned for the junction to be used for that purpose? Had any account been taken of the fact that people would—
I think that we are the only people who have noticed how busy the junction is getting.
I would like again to go back in time a little. The matter was raised with Callum MacDonald back in 1997, when he was the responsible minister.
I referred to the grade-separated junctions on the A90 at Forfar. Have they been a success?
Yes.
As people who use the junction every day, what would be your solution to the problem?
I would like there to be the same measures as were put in place at Forfar. There should be an immediate speed reduction, with a view to the introduction of a graded junction. There have been no fatalities at Forfar since the 50mph speed limit came into effect. I realise that a graded junction will take time, but we must do something now.
Speed cameras could be installed in the short term.
Yes. We need something now. Days are getting darker with winter coming in, so things are only getting worse.
Good morning, folks.
To be honest, the arrangement is quite frightening. It is not uncommon to see four cars lined up alongside one another. I used to travel on the road in the morning, and I have seen four cars turning into the north-bound carriageway at the same time. Three cars doing so is common, and two cars is standard.
So the width of the central reservation takes only one car length.
Yes, but it can accommodate four car widths.
Can the cars stack side by side?
Yes, and they do.
That is quite dangerous. What about turning left? Is there an acceleration lane for joining the trunk road?
No.
Thank you.
What has been the council's official response?
I believe that the north-east safety camera partnership is considering short-term measures and I hope that speed cameras will be used to reduce speeds. The number of police patrols and mobile camera patrols has also been increased in order to reduce speeds. Figures came out about the 63 speeders that I mentioned as a result of one such measure.
Have you have met the council's head of roads and transportation?
Councillors have progressed the matter by way of a committee motion in Aberdeenshire Council, which received unanimous support, I think.
We are joined by the constituency MSP and two of the area list MSPs, so I give them the opportunity to contribute.
I thank you and the committee clerk for accepting the petition when it was presented—that was helpful.
I agree whole-heartedly with what has been said. I will give some technical details. Three years ago, engineers from BEAR Scotland Ltd, which is responsible for maintaining the A90 on behalf of the Executive, assisted me with examining a problem whereby the three junctions at Laurencekirk were causing difficulties. The junction that we are talking about today is the worst, but the other two are also dangerous and present similar problems for those who try to cross the dual carriageway in that there is no safety area in the middle of the carriageway. It is a narrow road on a big bend with no lighting whatever and in poor weather it is difficult to see the signs. I put the matter to Lewis Macdonald with the support of the community council in Laurencekirk, but it was rejected. The BEAR Scotland engineers told me that if the scheme was approved it would take three years to build. That is why we in the area agree that we need to put in place temporary restrictions such as those that have worked and saved lives at Forfar: a reduction in the speed limit and proper signage. Local drivers tell me that the current signage is nothing more than a distraction.
The A937, which runs between Montrose and Laurencekirk, is an important local road. Jill Campbell referred to the economies of north Angus and south Mearns, to which that road is important. Montrose is a local economic centre that has much influence in the Howe of the Mearns. Laurencekirk lies at the centre of the howe, which is a densely populated agricultural area that has many small villages and many bigger farms whose houses and former cottages have been developed and are all occupied. The area has many more people than the size of Laurencekirk village suggests.
What are committee members' suggestions?
First, we need to ask the Scottish Executive what its views are, given that we have heard the views of the petitioners and their supporting MSPs. BEAR Scotland has been mentioned. We should ask the Executive what BEAR's plans and timescales for action are. That would be a good starting point.
What Mike Rumbles and David Davidson said and the figures about heavy goods vehicles that use the route suggest that the road is a trunk road, so it is the Executive's rather than the council's responsibility. I seek the clerks' indulgence; is it within the committee's remit to pass the petition to ministers rather than go through the Local Government and Transport Committee?
It would be always be standard practice for us to do one or other of those things. If we decide that we have enough evidence from the Executive on the subject, we can refer PE778 straight to the appropriate committee. If that is not the case, we would take the Executive's view before referring the petition, together with the Executive response, to the appropriate committee so that it is advised of the Executive position. What we do not do is to send petitions to the Executive and the appropriate committee at the same time.
I was just seeking clarification. I know that we cannot send petitions to the Executive and the appropriate committee at the same time. I am worried about the timescale that would be involved in sending PE778 to the Executive—to solicit its thoughts and comments on the matter—and to the Local Government and Transport Committee. My suggestion is that we send PE778 to the Executive with a letter saying that the evidence that we have heard today suggests that something be done immediately.
Again, it has become our practice—certainly that is the case since I became convener—to give the Executive six weeks to respond. If we have not received a response within that time, we go back to the Executive and its lack of response becomes part of our consideration of the petition. We have experienced delayed responses from the Executive in the past, but we do not allow petitions to be kicked into the long grass; we pursue the lack of response and do not let timescales slip.
Time is of the essence, as winter is coming in. If the committee agrees that we should write to the Executive, we must ensure that it replies timeously. Helen Eadie also made a suggestion about writing to Aberdeenshire Council. Surely the council could get BEAR Scotland to put in some temporary measures to address the number of people who have been killed on this small stretch of road.
It would be appropriate to write to the local authority to get its view. Having heard the evidence on PE778, we should collect as much information as we can from the Executive. As Helen Eadie suggested, we should also write to the local authority and other appropriate organisations, to which list I would add the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents. We need to seek its views on the subject.
Although we are interested in all the views, the one that interests me most is the view of the Minister for Transport—he has the decision-making capability and we should write to him.
The suggestion that I omitted to make was that we should contact the European road assessment programme, which is a new programme of which I was unaware until I read the paper. Given that we are talking about one of Scotland's major trunk roads, it would be good to get the programme's view on the matter.
A number of organisations have been suggested, but—
The point of writing to the Executive is to get a response from the Minister for Transport.
Absolutely.
Once we get the responses, the clerks and I will update members and the petitioner. We will consider PE778 further after receipt of those responses.
Thank you.
National Football Team (Management Regime) (PE780)
The previous petition was the first and last one this morning for which we had supporters at the committee. We invited two other petitioners to come today. Although they were unable to accept the invitation, they want their petitions to go ahead. Petition PE780 was submitted by Bruce Tennant, who calls on the Scottish Parliament to debate the need for the immediate restructuring of the Scottish football team's management regime.
I have read the papers and it would be helpful if we referred the petition formally to Richard Baker, given that he is undertaking that investigation on behalf of the Enterprise and Culture Committee. That would deal with the petitioner's concerns.
Events in the past few days have overtaken the petition. I agree that the management of the team should be restructured. That was evident this week when Denis Law suggested that any new appointment to manage the team should have a Scottish background. It seems to be the fashion nowadays that every team in the country wants a foreign manager.
I think that Berti Vogts's job was impossible, which is the issue that underlies the petition. The petition is not about who the manager of the team should be, but about how Scottish football is run, which is what Richard Baker is investigating. We have previously referred to Richard Baker petitions from supporters of Falkirk Football Club and Inverness Caledonian Thistle Football Club, which implied that a problem exists with the structure of Scottish football. Granted, the petition specifically asks the Scottish Parliament to do something about sacking Berti Vogts and we could not have any involvement in that. However, nobody would find it easy to manage the Scottish national team at present given the difficulties with the structure of Scottish football. Whoever takes over the job, be they Scottish or otherwise, will find it difficult, because Scottish football has been declining for such a long time and the tools they will have to work with are meagre.
That is true.
The suggestion that we add the petition to Richard Baker's work load is probably the best that we can do with it.
I declare that I am a director of Dundee United Football Club and a member of the Enterprise and Culture Committee. I am happy for the petition to be referred to Richard Baker, although he has finished taking evidence. As you say, convener, the petition is not clear and it contains conflicting views. The petition mentions the
We have asked the petitioner to clarify specifically what he intended. He mentioned the regime within Scottish football, which creates the difficulty of exactly what the changes would entail. If we ask Richard Baker to consider the petition, it will be for him to engage in a discussion with Mr Tennant. Richard Baker has said that he is prepared to do that as part of his overall investigation. Although the consultation period is closed, he will take account of the petition and speak to the petitioner to get to the bottom of what was meant.
Fine—if that has been agreed with Richard Baker, I am more than happy to go along with it.
Are members happy with that?
I wonder whether we should write to the Scottish Football Association to ask whether it has any views on the petition.
Yes, why not?
Richard Baker has had meetings with the SFA.
Yes, he will have had those discussions. We will refer the petition to Richard Baker and allow him to get on with the work that he has undertaken.
Treason Law (PE782)
Our next petition is PE782, by Mark Colquhoun. It calls on the Parliament to take a view on modernising the law on treason in the United Kingdom; to consider that the recommendations of the Law Commission for England and Wales in 1977, on the reform of the law in this area, have never been implemented; and to make representations to the United Kingdom Parliament as appropriate. Before being formally lodged, the petition was posted on the e-petitioner site where it gathered 11 signatures during the period 31 August to 30 September 2004.
I am puzzled as to why we are considering this petition. It deals with a reserved matter and, in the past, the committee has taken the view that such matters should be referred to Westminster. What was your thinking, convener?
The petition asks for the Scottish Parliament to take a view and we cannot do that unless we consider the petition.
I feel that, because it deals with a reserved matter, we should refer the petition to Westminster. Once we start to go down the road of considering reserved matters, we will open the floodgates to many other petitions.
We are always careful not to do that, but the Scotland Act 1998 allows the Parliament to take views on matters. The petitioner is aware of that and has petitioned the Parliament to take a view.
We have considered petitions on, for example, asylum seekers. Whether or not a matter is reserved, we have a right to pass comment.
No, it affects Scotland. The Scots law was subsumed into English law. The laws governing Scotland are UK laws. Although this law was written as an English law, it covers Scotland. That is what makes this a reserved issue.
Did that come into force after 1708?
Yes, and that has never been changed.
Obviously, the matter is important for Mr Colquhoun and the others who signed the petition. Perhaps we should write to the Law Commission for England and Wales. Our paper refers to recommendations that were made by the commission in 1977. In the interests of transparency and fairness, the committee should write to the commission for an update.
It is certainly worth asking questions. Are members happy that we should do that?
National Bird (PE783)
Our next petition is PE783, by James Reynolds on behalf of The Scotsman, which calls on the Parliament to support the establishment of the golden eagle as the national bird of Scotland.
Thank you, convener, and to avoid confusion, it is the golden eagle that we want as the national bird, not me. I say that in case there is any misunderstanding.
Congratulations on being the successful sponsor. If some other MSPs had sponsored birds we might have ended up with a bald coot or a turkey, not to say a bustard.
I think that the bird pled its own case.
That has got the official report staff on their toes.
It is a serious enough issue to merit coming forward as a petition, so I am interested to hear what committee members think we should do.
It is nice of Annabel Goldie to glide in today from her committee. The petition's concept is interesting. If we are to go down the route of having a national bird, perhaps we ought to conduct more comprehensive research than that which was done by only one newspaper. It would be sensible to widen the research to include, for example, The Herald in the west of Scotland, which would give the result a more national dimension than the research from just an Edinburgh newspaper.
I agree with John Scott. The thought that comes to my mind is whether we necessarily want to go for a bird that attacks. Although it is a wonderful, strong bird, I would rather that we thought about having a bird of peace such as a dove. Scotland wants to be on the global map and known as a country that believes in peace and wants to go down that route. That view might be shared by many others, but how do we test it? John Scott makes a good point about wider consultation. Having been the loser in the proportional representation debate, it crossed my mind that the survey was conducted using proportional representation methods.
Before coming to Jackie Baillie, it might be worth my pointing out that the RSPB drew up the shortlist.
I have no doubt that it was a very interesting competition and that time was taken to pair MSPs and others with their bird of choice. I hardly consider the sample to be scientific if only 1,666 people respond, no matter how earnest those responses, and I do not think that we should rush to do anything on the back of that.
With pleasure, convener. It was precisely that awareness and sentiment that inspired me to say that I felt that the golden eagle was an exemplary model of how to set about construction projects. It manages to construct an impressive eyrie that endures apparently without limit of time and does not cost anyone a penny. I thought that that was a fine example to put before Scotland.
But the eagle reminds people of Bush and all the worst aspects of aggression. The eagle is one of the emblems of America.
It does not. If I may say so, that is an unfortunate ornithological lapse. The committee member is confusing the bald-headed eagle with the golden eagle. As a Scot, my blood rises and courses through my veins to think that there could be any possible confusion. The golden eagle is, of course, an indigenous Scot and a dramatic, heroic and fine example of all the best qualities of Scotland. Mrs Eadie took some exception to the fact that the bird is a raptor. It is a raptor, but raptors are found in many forms in society—they are not necessarily restricted to the world of ornithology. It is important that if the committee is minded to find merit in the petition, albeit it might have some views about how it might proceed, we should not lose sight of the fact that whatever bird is chosen, it has to be one that, not just in the national mind of Scotland but on the wider front, is unequivocally identified with Scotland.
Do members have ideas of who we should contact? The idea that we should take wider soundings on the petition is important, because, although it has generated a discussion, we may not be able to make a definitive decision. We might have to ask other organisations beyond the RSPB, although I take into account the scale of the RSPB. If a national bird is being chosen to promote Scotland, perhaps we should contact the organisations that do that job to find out whether they have a view on whether the addition of a national bird for Scotland would help them to promote the country. It would be worth taking views from organisations such as VisitScotland that would use the bird as an emblem.
We should also contact schools, churches and wider society, such as the Scottish Civic Forum. This would be an ideal issue for the Scottish Civic Forum to engage with us on. We have treated the petition with a great deal of humour this morning, which is good and welcome because it makes for a bit of light relief in the committee for a change, but it is important. I urge you to accept—which you obviously are doing, convener—the point that various members have made, that we should consult as widely as possibly. How can we go wider than just the Scottish Civic Forum and others, and who would the other appropriate people be?
I do not want to be awkward, convener, but I take a slightly different view. Before we rush off to debate the merits of various birds in Scotland, it might be useful to find out what the process for adopting a national bird is. I would have thought that, in the first instance, we should simply write to the Executive for that piece of information and to find out whether it is minded to adopt a national bird. I am conscious that some of the articles in The Scotsman referred to the supportive comments of the then Deputy Minister for Environment and Rural Development, so it would be useful to find out what the Executive's view is before we consider a wider consultation that might invite people to start nominating half a dozen different birds. The committee is not in a position to decide which bird it should be, however admirable Annabel Goldie might be.
The options for action include a wide range of people for the committee to consult. The Scottish Executive is included, as are Scottish Natural Heritage, the Scottish Wildlife Trust, the National Trust for Scotland and the Heraldry Society of Scotland. I recommend that we adopt the options that are recommended in the paper.
And that we not take a view as to which bird it should be.
No, not at this stage.
If we do that, I hope that you will take account of the request that we adopt a much wider approach to civic Scotland. The Scottish Civic Forum should be included in the list of consultees if we are following the recommendations in the paper. The point that Jackie Baillie made is right, and I agree with her suggestion. I hope that you will approach the churches too and ensure that a full transcript of our discussion goes to all the organisations mentioned.
I get the feeling that there are two views. Are you saying that we should go to the Executive, get a lead from it about its attitude to the proposal and then contact wider organisations after the Executive gets back to us?
That is fine.
I endorse that proposal. The concept of a national bird is nice, but we should investigate it and hasten slowly rather than rush into it. We have managed to exist without one for many hundreds of years thus far, so we do not need to rush it. One has to ask whether it is an intelligent use of parliamentary time to consult the whole of Scotland. There might be a sensible reason for consulting a little bit more widely, but let us not go overboard.
Are members happy that we write to the Executive first and await a response from it?
I thank Annabel Goldie for helping us with our discussions.
Sir William Wallace (PE781)
Petition PE781 was lodged by John Stewart Heselden and calls on the Scottish Parliament to commemorate the 700th anniversary of Sir William Wallace's death on 23 August 2005; to mark the date an annual event in the Scottish calendar thereafter; to acknowledge on public record that William Wallace was not guilty of the charge of treason laid before him; and to make representations to the United Kingdom Parliament for a declaration of his innocence and that he be exonerated of that charge.
I declare an interest. I am a member of the William Wallace Society and I was the society's press officer for many years.
The new Minister for Tourism, Culture and Sport is Patricia Ferguson.
Sorry, you are right. Rhona Brankin is the new Deputy Minister for Health and Community Care. When people move about so much it is hard to remember.
I find that argument a bit esoteric. If William Wallace did not commit treason by challenging the laws of the time, why is he a hero?
How could he commit treason? Scotland was an independent country at the time and William Wallace was fighting an oppressor.
I take the point. We could get into an argument about the nature of William Wallace's crime, but how can we sit here many hundreds of years after the event and exonerate someone for doing something that they obviously felt that they had to do?
The petitioner is not asking the committee to exonerate William Wallace. He is asking us to find a vehicle for securing a pardon. My point is that there does not need to be a pardon because as far as I am concerned no crime was committed. The petitioner asks for a pardon; I think that we should ask for an apology for the disgraceful way in which William Wallace was treated. The man was hung, drawn and quartered all those years ago.
We must take account of the petition, which asks the Parliament to take specific action. We must consider whether we can take such action.
I do not for a minute diminish the sense of injustice that people clearly still feel, despite the fact that 700 years have passed. However, to echo the convener's point, the petition does not ask for an apology from anyone; it asks specifically for a pardon. Equally, the advice that we have been given is that although a pardon would set aside the sentence, it would not set aside the conviction, so we are at cross-purposes about what people want.
I agree with Jackie Baillie. In order to get more information, it might be helpful if we could pursue the suggestion in our papers that we get an academic perspective on the matter from Professor Edward Cowan and a legal perspective from the Crown Office.
That might help us with our deliberations.
I come to this from a different perspective to Sandra White's in that I am a unionist. It could strengthen the United Kingdom if Wallace were granted a pardon on the 700th anniversary of his death, in the spirit of bringing the countries of the UK together, rather than the issue continuing to divide them after all these years.
The petition is asking for William Wallace to be exonerated. I do not know whether that equates to a pardon.
That is the point I was making. The petitioner does not ask for a pardon for William Wallace; he asks for
What do we do? Do we write to the people whom Helen Eadie suggested and see whether we can get more clarity on what we can do in respect of the petition?
I omitted to mention the Clan Wallace Society. It might be appropriate to get an indication of its views.
Are members happy to do that?
We can all agree to write to the Minister for Tourism, Culture and Sport—I have decided who the minister is now—to ask what the Executive is doing. I do not see why we should write to the Clan Wallace Society. I am familiar with the society and I am sure that it would support any moves that we make on pushing this matter forward. The first part of the suggestion is fine, but the Executive should write to the UK Parliament to get a declaration from it of the innocence of William Wallace and his exoneration of the charge. I have a slightly different view from the rest of the committee.
Are you asking us to find out whether the Executive is prepared to go to the UK Government with that proposal?
Yes.
We can find that out. There are two parts to the petition. One is about marking the anniversary of Wallace's death and the other is to ask what the Executive intends to do about seeking exoneration. We should put those two specific points to the Executive and await its response before we make further decisions. On Helen Eadie's suggestion, I wonder whether it would help us to know what other organisations, such as the Clan Wallace Society, think about the petitioner's request.
I am quite prepared to take that on board.
It makes sense to gather information by asking as many people as we can think of who might have a relevant interest. Once we have heard their views, we can then decide how we want to take the petition forward—if we want to take it forward.
Are members happy with that?
Next
Current Petitions