Chamber
Meeting of the Parliament 23 February 2011
23 Feb 2011 · S3 · Meeting of the Parliament
Item of business
Public Petitions Committee
As others have said, the Scottish Parliament’s public petitions system is a real success story. Nanette Milne identified some of those successes.
There has been huge engagement on the part of members of the general public as people throughout Scotland have realised that a system is available through which they can seek to address concerns that have been ignored or which have simply disappeared off the radar screens of the powers that be.
I will take the example of the committee’s work on a petition on an issue that affects my constituents and show that, although a positive outcome has still not been obtained, the committee has done a powerful job in examining it. It will not come as a surprise to the members of the committee that I am referring to the 8,000-signature petition that was lodged by Jill Campbell, which sought the construction of a safe crossing of the A90 at Laurencekirk.
The issue is a long-standing one. It goes back to 2005, when the previous Administration’s transport minister met the campaigners and short-term safety measures were put in place at the junction—speed cameras were installed and a 50mph speed restriction was imposed. The campaigners knew that their worries were being addressed and were told that their junction would be the next one to be fully grade separated. Unfortunately for the campaigners, in 2007 a different regime was installed here and the focus of the Government changed. Despite all the new transport minister’s positive words about there being nothing more important than saving lives on our roads, the commitment to build a grade-separated junction at Laurencekirk was forgotten, as plans were made in the strategic transport projects review to build such junctions around Stirling and Perth.
When he was challenged on why he would not build a safe junction at Laurencekirk, the transport minister gave one explanation after another. After careful examination by the committee, each explanation was shown to be less than convincing. The minister said that the accident statistics that the petitioners were using were wrong, until the committee pointed out that they were his Government’s statistics. The minister said that the statistics showed that there had been fewer accidents around Laurencekirk since the safety measures were introduced in 2005, but the committee heard that the statistics showed that the number of serious accidents was increasing. The minister said that the cost of building a grade-separated junction at Laurencekirk would be £24 million, but the committee found that that was simply the quote for building the most expensive grade-separated junction ever built in Scotland. Indeed, the committee found that BEAR Scotland had produced a report that said that the cost could be as little as £4 million.
The committee called Stewart Stevenson, the previous transport minister, and Keith Brown, the current minister, to give evidence. I believe that it did that because it was so clear that the Scottish Government had not been entirely open and transparent about its priorities for building roads.
The petitioner still does not have a commitment from the transport minister to build the safe junction that is needed, but the petitions process continues to do its work. I know that thousands of my constituents are grateful for the hard work of all the members of the committee in helping to get to the bottom of the reasons why the Scottish Government refuses to prioritise the building of a safe junction at Laurencekirk. It is not that the petitioner expects the committee to be able to produce a grade-separated junction at Laurencekirk. What the petitioner is hoping for—and so far her hopes have been well founded—is that the process can get to the bottom of the reasons why a particular decision has been taken.
That is the key point of the Public Petitions Committee process. It is not about waving a magic wand and doing something that petitioners cannot get done elsewhere. It boils down to the fact that, too often, the powers that be say to people that they cannot have something or that something cannot be done, but their explanations do not ring true. The committee is doing tremendous work in that regard.
I commend all the members of the committee for the non-partisan way in which they have conducted their business on the committee for the real benefit of the people of Scotland and, in my case, for the benefit of my constituents.
15:17
There has been huge engagement on the part of members of the general public as people throughout Scotland have realised that a system is available through which they can seek to address concerns that have been ignored or which have simply disappeared off the radar screens of the powers that be.
I will take the example of the committee’s work on a petition on an issue that affects my constituents and show that, although a positive outcome has still not been obtained, the committee has done a powerful job in examining it. It will not come as a surprise to the members of the committee that I am referring to the 8,000-signature petition that was lodged by Jill Campbell, which sought the construction of a safe crossing of the A90 at Laurencekirk.
The issue is a long-standing one. It goes back to 2005, when the previous Administration’s transport minister met the campaigners and short-term safety measures were put in place at the junction—speed cameras were installed and a 50mph speed restriction was imposed. The campaigners knew that their worries were being addressed and were told that their junction would be the next one to be fully grade separated. Unfortunately for the campaigners, in 2007 a different regime was installed here and the focus of the Government changed. Despite all the new transport minister’s positive words about there being nothing more important than saving lives on our roads, the commitment to build a grade-separated junction at Laurencekirk was forgotten, as plans were made in the strategic transport projects review to build such junctions around Stirling and Perth.
When he was challenged on why he would not build a safe junction at Laurencekirk, the transport minister gave one explanation after another. After careful examination by the committee, each explanation was shown to be less than convincing. The minister said that the accident statistics that the petitioners were using were wrong, until the committee pointed out that they were his Government’s statistics. The minister said that the statistics showed that there had been fewer accidents around Laurencekirk since the safety measures were introduced in 2005, but the committee heard that the statistics showed that the number of serious accidents was increasing. The minister said that the cost of building a grade-separated junction at Laurencekirk would be £24 million, but the committee found that that was simply the quote for building the most expensive grade-separated junction ever built in Scotland. Indeed, the committee found that BEAR Scotland had produced a report that said that the cost could be as little as £4 million.
The committee called Stewart Stevenson, the previous transport minister, and Keith Brown, the current minister, to give evidence. I believe that it did that because it was so clear that the Scottish Government had not been entirely open and transparent about its priorities for building roads.
The petitioner still does not have a commitment from the transport minister to build the safe junction that is needed, but the petitions process continues to do its work. I know that thousands of my constituents are grateful for the hard work of all the members of the committee in helping to get to the bottom of the reasons why the Scottish Government refuses to prioritise the building of a safe junction at Laurencekirk. It is not that the petitioner expects the committee to be able to produce a grade-separated junction at Laurencekirk. What the petitioner is hoping for—and so far her hopes have been well founded—is that the process can get to the bottom of the reasons why a particular decision has been taken.
That is the key point of the Public Petitions Committee process. It is not about waving a magic wand and doing something that petitioners cannot get done elsewhere. It boils down to the fact that, too often, the powers that be say to people that they cannot have something or that something cannot be done, but their explanations do not ring true. The committee is doing tremendous work in that regard.
I commend all the members of the committee for the non-partisan way in which they have conducted their business on the committee for the real benefit of the people of Scotland and, in my case, for the benefit of my constituents.
15:17
In the same item of business
The Deputy Presiding Officer (Trish Godman)
Lab
The next item of business is a debate on motion S3M-7968, in the name of Rhona Brankin, on the work of the Public Petitions Committee.14:50
Rhona Brankin (Midlothian) (Lab)
Lab
It is with pleasure that I open this debate on behalf of the committee, which will allow us to highlight some of the important petitions that we have discuss...
The Minister for Parliamentary Business (Bruce Crawford)
SNP
I thank the convener for her opening remarks and for the opportunity to contribute to this afternoon’s debate on the work of the Public Petitions Committee.F...
Paul Martin (Glasgow Springburn) (Lab)
Lab
I commend, as others have, the work of the Public Petitions Committee not only this session but since 1999. A number of members have already illustrated the ...
Nanette Milne (North East Scotland) (Con)
Con
Having been a member of the Public Petitions Committee throughout the third session of Parliament, I can honestly say that it has been the most rewarding and...
Mike Rumbles (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)
LD
As others have said, the Scottish Parliament’s public petitions system is a real success story. Nanette Milne identified some of those successes.There has be...
Anne McLaughlin (Glasgow) (SNP)
SNP
Those of us who are on the Public Petitions Committee are rather fortunate to be there. As Nanette Milne said, it is a varied committee, so it is never borin...
Bill Butler (Glasgow Anniesland) (Lab)
Lab
I have been privileged to have been a member of the Public Petitions Committee for almost two and a half years. I record my thanks to its exemplary clerking ...
Bob Doris (Glasgow) (SNP)
SNP
I start by thanking the current convener, the previous one, Frank McAveety, and all members of the committee for providing a positive and constructive forum ...
Cathie Craigie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (Lab)
Lab
Like other members, I welcome the opportunity to speak in this debate on the importance and uniqueness of our Parliament’s petitions system.I am proud that o...
John Wilson (Central Scotland) (SNP)
SNP
Members in the chamber—committee members and the many members who have come through the doors on a Tuesday afternoon to support petitions from constituents a...
Robin Harper (Lothians) (Green)
Green
In the first session of Parliament, I was on the Transport and the Environment Committee, in which we were concerned with making legislation. I was on the Au...
Nigel Don (North East Scotland) (SNP)
SNP
Members will perhaps not be surprised that, in the brief time available, I will not consider the substance of what the committee has done—other members have ...
Jim Hume (South of Scotland) (LD)
LD
We have had an interesting debate this afternoon that has highlighted the importance of the Public Petitions Committee. The Scottish Constitutional Conventio...
Nanette Milne
Con
Like other members, I pay tribute to the committee clerks, led by Fergus Cochrane, who have made an immense contribution to the success of the committee. The...
Paul Martin
Lab
Like other members, I note that the committee’s convener, its deputy convener and Robin Harper are stepping down at the next election, so what they said soun...
Bruce Crawford
SNP
I thank the committee members for their contributions. Listening to the different perspectives of members across the chamber has been interesting. I am sure ...
John Farquhar Munro (Ross, Skye and Inverness West) (LD)
LD
It is with enormous pleasure that I close this debate on behalf of the Public Petitions Committee. Those who follow our work will know that we are very much ...
The Deputy Presiding Officer (Alasdair Morgan)
SNP
You have about a minute left, Mr Munro.
John Farquhar Munro
LD
Thank you.Most petitions are lodged on the back of personal experience, sometimes tragic, as in the case of John Muir. When we hosted the knife crime summit ...