Public Petitions Committee

Meeting date: Tuesday, November 27, 2012

Official Report 437KB pdf

---

Current Petitions

---

School Bus Safety (PE1098 and PE1223)

Agenda item 3 is consideration of current petitions. Petitions PE1098, by Lynn Merrifield, on behalf of Kingseat community council, and PE1223, by Ron Beaty, on school bus safety, are linked.

Members have a note by the clerk, in which we are invited to note the submissions that we have received. We are looking to hold an event on this issue in the Parliament in May next year, which will be an interesting development. That will involve people across the board who have an interest in safety and all committee members. It should be a useful discussion.

The letter that we have received from the minister refers to the action that he is taking on tendering and the consultation, which I assume is on the provision of seat belts on school buses. It is anticipated that the results of that consultation will be before us in April 2013, which is quite timely given that we hope to have a debate in the chamber in May. It would be useful to write to the minister indicating our intention to seek a debate and to say that the consultation responses would be gratefully received as part of that debate.

To clarify, the event will be in the Parliament and we will be involved with others who have an interest in this particular area, such as local authorities and safety campaigners. Nevertheless, John Wilson’s point is well made—we need to ensure that the minister knows what we are doing in May. Do members agree with that approach?

Members indicated agreement.

---

A90/A937 (Safety Improvements) (PE1236)

The next current petition is PE1236, by Jill Campbell, on the A90 and A937 safety improvements. Members have a note by the clerk.

There are two members present who have a long-standing interest in the petition, both of whom are honorary committee members: Nigel Don and Nanette Milne. I thank them for giving us detailed maps, which we will look at. I ask Nigel Don to briefly address the committee first, and then Nanette Milne.

Thank you very much, convener. I am grateful to be counted as an honorary committee member. Nanette Milne and I are, of course, ex-committee members, too and we recognise some of the work that you have just been dealing with.

I have given members a map—I am grateful to the convener for distributing it—simply because one of the issues that has arisen in connection with the petition is the suggestion from Transport Scotland that it would be entirely appropriate for heavy vehicles leaving Montrose to go either via Brechin or up the coast via the Inverbervie route to get to the A90 if they were going north.

Superficially that might seem sensible, but if we look at the map we can see that nobody who is looking at a tachograph or worrying about their petrol consumption will be in a hurry to do that more than occasionally. It is entirely obvious that the A937 up through Marykirk to Laurencekirk is the sensible route and the suggestion that anyone might go any other way is—I will have to be very charitable this morning—not very wise. I will have to try to remember to be charitable, because it will be very difficult.

I am grateful that members are well aware of the issues here and I draw their attention to a couple of points in the response from Transport Scotland. It repeatedly takes the view that the junction is not presently dangerous or overloaded, but it accepts that there is a 50mph limit—the only 50mph on our trunk routes. Why is that limit there, ladies and gentlemen? It is there because the junction is overloaded and dangerous.

The second point is slightly more worrying, because it is a sleight of hand. Transport Scotland seems to keep suggesting that a single flyover at Laurencekirk will be developer led. That ignores the fact that once there is further development at Laurencekirk, there will need to be two flyovers—one at the north junction and one at the south junction. For those who are not familiar with Laurencekirk, its high street could best be described as a series of chicanes. It is virtually impossible to get down it without having to stop to let somebody past. The parallel road, on the other side of the railway line, literally is not wide enough for two heavy vehicles to pass each other. The idea that a development that will primarily occur in the north will somehow or other come up with the £25 million that, from previous comments from Transport Scotland, we know will be needed to provide the flyovers is—again, to be charitable—mistaken. The suggestion that somehow or other section 75 money will give us the south junction, which we need anyway and which is a pre-existing problem, is—even being charitable—nonsense.

I get the impression that we are getting nowhere with Transport Scotland. The petitioner and one of the other correspondents are in the public gallery and I am sure that they are nodding vigorously. We seem to be bashing our heads against a brick wall. I am not sure what the committee can do further, although you have been wonderfully supportive and I am very grateful. I suggest that we might want to see the petition go to the Infrastructure and Capital Investment Committee, because I think that it has a remit to worry about roads and transport. We might be able to make a rather more comprehensive presentation to it than we can possibly do in this context. We might be able to get ministers involved and demonstrate why this simply needs to be done and why it makes no sense to defer it.

That seems a sensible suggestion. I will bring in Nanette Milne.

I will be extremely brief, convener. I was lucky to be able to get along today because my committee is not meeting this morning, unusually.

I fully endorse what Nigel Don said. I do not know how long this petition has been going, but we really have been beating our heads against a brick wall, as far as Transport Scotland is concerned. I suspect that the only way that this can be progressed is to refer the petition to another committee, and the Infrastructure and Capital Investment Committee appears to be the obvious one.

Over many months and years, the Public Petitions Committee has made all sorts of moves to try to get something done about this junction. It is a very serious issue. Perhaps there have not been any serious accidents recently, but it is worrying to even drive past the junction on the main road, let alone get across the main road from some of the side roads. Something needs to be done.

Thank you both again for coming along. You have been very helpful with keeping the committee up to date with local circumstances. Although this has been a long-running petition—I think that it has been going for five years now—it is clearly a huge local issue. I know that you have been very frustrated with Transport Scotland when trying to get some action and your suggestion about the Infrastructure and Capital Investment Committee seems very sensible. Do members agree?

I agree. Clearly the major impact is on the economic development of the north-east. The Aberdeen western peripheral route and all the associated developments will draw more and more traffic to the area, and the petition should be referred to the Infrastructure and Capital Investment Committee to try to crystallise decisions instead of simply promulgating the discussion about predictions of future traffic levels. Any such considerations should cover economic development in the north-east and come up with something better than a simple statement that the numbers have been underestimated. I am sure that they have been. Anyone who has driven on that road—as I have, many a time and oft—will support the petition and I endorse your suggestion that we write to the Infrastructure and Capital Investment Committee.

I saw at first hand the issue with this junction just two weeks ago on a fact-finding visit to the north-east by Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee members. We had to cross the junction on the way to Montrose, and it would be fair to say that the experience was hair-raising. Of course, I had been aware of the issues prior to that, having travelled to Aberdeen airport on occasion. There is a serious issue to address and given that, as Nigel Don has pointed out, we are getting nowhere with Transport Scotland, I feel that it is imperative that the petition be referred to the Infrastructure and Capital Investment Committee so that it can, I hope, be progressed.

I commend Nigel Don and Nanette Milne for their perseverance with this petition. Like me, Nigel Don was a member of the committee in the previous session when it dealt with the issue; indeed, Nanette Milne, too, was a committee member until just recently.

I also commend the petitioner Jill Campbell for her perseverance in this matter. Although we have at times been frustrated by the responses that we have received from Transport Scotland, we have nevertheless managed to get enough information from it to vindicate our decision to pass the petition to the Infrastructure and Capital Investment Committee. When we first dealt with the petition, Transport Scotland said that there was no issue to answer either with regard to the need for a grade-separated junction or about transport in the area; however, as members have made clear, anyone who has travelled on the main route will realise that there must be difficulties with the junction if they are being asked to reduce their speed to 50mph while passing it.

I put on record my thanks to the petitioner, who has been campaigning on this matter for eight years and longer. I hope that we can get the Infrastructure and Capital Investment Committee to take forward the petition in a way that gives some satisfaction both to the petitioner and to the residents in the area, and ensures that they get some solution to their current traffic problems.

Are members agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

On the impact of heavy goods vehicles, I should also note that, for example, the opening of the Victoria and Albert museum at the Dundee end of the route might mean that we will have tourists—who, after all, might well fly into Aberdeen as much as they will fly into Edinburgh—using the road without knowing anything about it, and it is critical that we minimise the risk to them.

I, too, endorse John Wilson’s comments about the petitioners, who have done a valiant job, and our guests Nigel Don and Nanette Milne.

I think that the committee is unanimous in its agreement to refer the petition under rule 15.6.2 to the Infrastructure and Capital Investment Committee for further consideration, and I thank our guests for coming along today.

---

Lesser-taught Languages and Cultures (University Teaching Funding) (PE1395)

Our fourth current petition is PE1395, by Jan Culík, on targeted funding for lesser-taught languages and cultures at Scottish universities. Members have a note from the clerk and the submissions. As members may recall, we heard a very good presentation from Jan Culík and his colleagues from the University of Glasgow last year, and we have considered the petition on a number of occasions since.

One issue that it might be useful to drill down into further would be to ask the Scottish Further and Higher Education Funding Council how it gathers information on unmet demand for courses that are not currently being offered. There has been some coming and going on the issue, but the petition deals with what is an important, although not very easy, subject. I think that we have done as much as we can, but there is probably one little element that we have not quite covered. Are members agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

We will write to the Scottish funding council to ask how it gathers information on unmet demand for courses that are not being offered.

---

Wild Animals in Circuses (Ban) (PE1400)

The fifth current petition is PE1400, by Libby Anderson, on behalf of OneKind, on a ban on the use of wild animals in circuses. Members should have received a note from the clerk and a late letter from Libby Anderson. I throw the discussion open to members.

I am sure that we sympathise with the objective, but on the basis that the letter that we have just received indicates that there are no travelling circuses using wild animals that visit Scotland or have their headquarters in Scotland, I am not sure how profound or expansive the petition is. I wonder whether it is worth while taking it forward.

If I remember rightly, we heard evidence from Libby Anderson and her colleagues. You are right to say that no such travelling circuses visit Scotland, but I think that she is basically saying that she wants a commitment from the Scottish Government to deter any such travelling circus that might be likely to come to Scotland. Sending a fairly straightforward one-line letter, to which we would expect a one-line response, would clarify the issue for the petitioner. Do members agree to do that?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Marriage (PE1413)

The sixth current petition is PE1413, by Amy King, on preserving marriage. Members have a note by the clerk and the submissions. Again, I invite contributions from members. I will give members a second to find the correct paperwork.

John Wilson had the misfortune to look up at the wrong time.

That may be because I read my papers prior to the meeting.

I suggest that we remit the petition to the Equal Opportunities Committee, which I believe will deal with the legislation that the Scottish Government proposes to introduce. I suggest that we pass the paperwork and responses that we have received so far to that committee, which can consider the petition as part of its discussions and deliberations on the forthcoming equal marriage legislation.

Clearly, that will be a major piece of legislation, in which the Equal Opportunities Committee will probably play a major role. When there is major legislation coming before the Parliament, it probably makes sense to refer the petition to the relevant committee. Do members agree to do that?

Members indicated agreement.

We will refer the petition to the Equal Opportunities Committee on the basis that that committee will be responsible for stage 1 scrutiny of the bill.

---

Public Sector Staff (Talents) (PE1423)

The seventh current petition is PE1423, by Gordon Hall, on behalf of the Unreasonable Learners, on harnessing the undoubted talent of public sector staff. Following our very useful round-table discussion, it was agreed that members would consider a paper from the clerk on the next steps. Members now have a note from the clerk. Do members have any views?

The clerk’s recommendation is that we refer the petition to the Local Government and Regeneration Committee, which is currently undertaking an inquiry into public service reform. I understand that there will be a meeting on Thursday 6 December for which the various participants have suggested that they will produce further work. Is it agreed to refer the petition to the Local Government and Regeneration Committee?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Ambulance Services (Remote and Rural Areas) (PE1432)

The eighth and final current petition is PE1432, by Joseph Duncalf and Anthony Duncalf, on improving emergency ambulance provision in remote and rural areas. Members have a note by the clerk—paper 11—and all the submissions. I invite comments from members.

As members will see from the recommendations, there is a strong argument that we should now close the petition on the basis that the Scottish Ambulance Service has made improvements in performance and has taken steps to improve its data gathering, which the petitioners suggested. The Scottish Ambulance Service has, therefore, taken the steps that the petitioners wanted it to take.

I seek advice on whether the petitioners have responded to the latest correspondence that we have received from the health and social care integration directorate. There are a couple of comments in the letter that we received on 23 October relating to the response times. The letter states:

“It is important to recognise that good progress has been made in relation to the Category A response time target; at an all mainland Scotland level performance has improved from 62% in 2007/08 to 73% in 2011/12. For the Dumfries and Galloway area, the equivalent figures are 58% in 2007/08 to 66.9% in 2011/12.”

I am not sure whether the petitioners would want to respond to the letter. Rather than close the petition, should we give the petitioners the opportunity to respond if they wish before we finally close it?

I understand that we have given them that opportunity but have not had a letter back from them yet.

The timing of any response depends on when they were contacted.

Would you rather that we received some comments from the petitioners before we closed the petition?

I am not sure when the petitioners were given sight of the letter that we have received. I would rather not close the petition now in case the petitioners come back and said that they would like us to examine further some of the figures that have been presented in the correspondence that has been received by the committee. I would hate us to close the petition only for the petitioners to come along and say—

That is not a problem. We can easily write to the petitioners, get their views and bring the petition back to a future committee meeting.

They might not have any views, but I would like to give them that opportunity.

I think that it is tidier for us to do that. Is that agreed?

I would like to test the assertion that engagement is taking place with the local community. The final paragraph of the letter in which that is referred to is slightly more vague than I would have liked an assurance to be.

I am not sure that this is pertinent, but I have attended several NHS Dumfries and Galloway board meetings and the issue has not surfaced among the critical items. I am not diminishing the suggestion in any way but I think that, once we have agreed a course of action, we should put the thing to bed.

Okay. We will write to the petitioners and consider the petition at a future meeting. Is that agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

That was the last item on the agenda. I ask members to stay behind for a brief discussion in private.

Meeting closed at 11:53.