Infrastructure and Capital Investment Committee

Meeting date: Wednesday, June 12, 2013

Official Report 373KB pdf

---

Petitions

---

Bus Services (Re-regulation) (PE1475)

---

A90/A937 (Safety Improvements) (PE1236)

Agenda item 2 is to discuss petition PE1475, on bus services and fares, which is new to the committee, and petition PE1236, on the junction at Laurencekirk. I welcome to the meeting Nigel Don, the local member for Laurencekirk.

We will deal with PE1475 first. I invite comments from members.

The committee will be aware that Iain Gray is preparing a member’s bill on bus regulation. The Minister for Transport and Veterans has said on record that he is happy to look at that, irrespective of whether the Government would support it.

Some of the issues that are raised in the petition will be encompassed in the bill. Therefore, we might want to monitor the petition alongside the bill, should it progress. I assume that the bill would come to this committee.

Yes, that is right. In fact, that is exactly what I said when I was substituting at the Public Petitions Committee when it first considered the petition. I said that Iain Gray’s member’s bill would cover part of the petition. I mentioned that the Infrastructure and Capital Investment Committee looked at concessionary travel as part of our annual consideration of the budget and that the issue featured in our community transport inquiry. I also mentioned that we looked at the bus service operators grant during budget time. Therefore, I suggested to the Public Petitions Committee that this committee had the matters under review as part of our routine work.

Do members agree to close the petition and to ensure that Iain Gray is aware of the petition, although I am sure that he is?

Given that we look at those matters anyway, I suppose that we could pass the petition on to Iain Gray to see whether his bill will address the issues in it.

Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

We will now consider petition PE1236, on the Laurencekirk junction. I ask Alex Johnstone whether he wishes to comment on the reply that we have had from Transport Scotland.

I am pleased to see Transport Scotland’s reply. It does not give a great deal of information, other than to say that the meeting that took place on 30 April was “productive”; that further meetings will be held later this year to progress the matter; and that Transport Scotland will continue to report to the committee.

We can do little with the information that has been provided, but I am keen to keep the matter on the committee’s agenda so that we can monitor the situation in greater detail when there is something to monitor.

I endorse Alex Johnstone’s comments. Transport Scotland’s reply is a classic holding letter. My constituents would be grateful if the committee could consider the matter in more detail as and when further information is available.

I agree with the previous two speakers, who have first-hand experience of the issue. Transport Scotland’s letter says:

“It will take a number of months to collect the data from all relevant authorities”.

It would be inappropriate to close the petition while that process is on-going.

My only worry, were we to keep the petition open, is that that might give false hope to the petitioner. I am happy to keep it open, if that is what the committee agrees. However, I do not think that we will see any major progress soon and I hope that the petitioner realises that.

The committee has got a result in that members gave Transport Scotland officials a flea in their ear when they appeared before us, which certainly motivated Transport Scotland to discuss the matter on 30 April with the local authorities and the north east of Scotland transport partnership. The official line is that the meeting was “productive”. That is true, because action is being taken and surveys are being carried out. I hope that we will get feedback on those surveys when they are completed. Is that what members want?

The petitioner, Jill Fotheringham, has been on the case for nearly nine years. I do not think that she is under any illusions about the potential outcomes or timescales, but we owe it to her to keep the process alive and keep turning the screw until such time as we have a definite outcome, one way or another.

Keeping the petition open does not change anything. If I am honest, it neither puts the petitioner in a false position nor puts the committee in an invidious position at a later date. Therefore, it is a good idea to keep the petition open.

It is important to see the result of the evaluation report. Transport Scotland says in its letter that it has gathered the information and that it will take a couple of months to collect and evaluate the data from all the relevant authorities. It would be a good idea to get an estimated completion time, so that we can review the report.

Steve Farrell, the clerk, has told me that it is likely to be completed by the end of the year. Do members agree to keep the petition open?

Members indicated agreement.

I briefly suspend the meeting until the next set of witnesses arrive.

10:44 Meeting suspended.

10:56 On resuming—