Public Petitions Committee, 10 Jun 2008

Meeting date: Tuesday, June 10, 2008

Official Report 295KB pdf

---

Current Petitions

---

A90 Deceleration Lane (PE1020)

Item 2 is consideration of current petitions. PE1020 is from Councillor Paul Melling, on behalf of the constituents of Portlethen South, which is ward 60 of Aberdeenshire Council, and it calls on the Scottish Parliament to consider and debate the safety issues for the requirement to construct a deceleration lane for access to the Bruntland Road junction from off the A90.

Interest has been expressed by Mike Rumbles, who is the constituency member who covers the area. Welcome to the committee, Mike.

I have read carefully the letter to the committee from Malcolm Reed of Transport Scotland. He accepts that the petitioner is justified in his concerns. The junction is extremely dangerous.

One or two committee members will know the junction, but others will not. When you come south from Aberdeen and go to Portlethen, you would turn left off the A90. It is a very sharp turn and there is no deceleration lane. People often have to slow right down to 20mph while, behind them, people are powering down the dual carriageway at 70mph—well, let us just call it 70mph.

The letter from Malcolm Reed says that it would be right to have a deceleration lane at that junction, but it also says that the junction ranks 13th out of 18 along the whole stretch of the A90. I do not find the letter satisfactory. It seems to say, "Yes, we accept there's a problem—it is a dangerous junction. We know we have to do the work, but the junction is ranked 13th out of 18." No timescale is given.

I would hate to think that, at the end of this process, we would simply say, "Well, okay, isn't it good that we've recognised that the work needs to be done?" Something more concrete should come out of the process. We should be able to say to Transport Scotland, "Okay, we accept that there has to be an order in which things are done, but the people of Portlethen should be told when Transport Scotland will get round to doing the work."

I know the junction well and I agree with Mike Rumbles that something needs to be done. Everyone who uses the road would agree.

Transport Scotland has confirmed that there is a problem, so we should write to Transport Scotland to ask what being 13th out of 18 means in terms of the timescale.

I, too, know the junction well. I drove past it yesterday evening in relatively heavy traffic and, as I passed vehicles that were slowing down and turning left, it was entirely clear to me that the junction is a problem. As it happened, the junction was well negotiated by the drivers, but the traffic was not heavy enough to cause a real problem.

I agree with Mike Rumbles. I accept, as we all would, that if there are other priorities, we have to wait to take our turn. However, it would be useful to know the timescale.

I cannot let this opportunity pass without noting that traffic going north is allowed to turn right across the A90 at this junction. That manoeuvre would not be allowed further down the same road at the Carse of Gowrie. We should highlight the issue, because such a manoeuvre is far more dangerous and would cause a much bigger mess if it went wrong. I am not inclined to let the petition go. We should seek a timescale and—if we are allowed to broaden the discussion—ask about traffic crossing the junction. Perhaps there should be no crossing at that point, given that there is a grade-separated junction only 2 or 3 miles up the road.

Members have indicated that they wish to pursue issues raised in the response that we have received. We will ensure that we make those inquiries. I thank the elected member for continuing to pursue the issue.

---

Hairdressing Training (Funding) (PE1045)

PE1045, from Tom Miller, on behalf of the Indigo Group, calls on the Parliament to consider and debate concerns that have been raised about employers and work-based training providers in the hairdressing industry following a change in policy by Scottish Enterprise that has led to a severe reduction in the number of young people who are funded for hairdressing training in Scotland. In my constituency, people have expressed concerns about access to skills and training under the new criteria. Can the issue be addressed through other agencies such as the sector skills body? In light of the information that we have received, how do members wish to deal with the petition?

We should close it on the basis of the information that has been supplied.

Do members accept the recommendation to close the petition?

Members indicated agreement.

The issues that it raises are a matter for the industry, the sector skills body and the modern apprenticeship group.

---

Unadopted Open Spaces (Maintenance) (PE1049)

PE1049, from Karen Shirron, calls on the Parliament to urge the Executive to take responsibility for the maintenance of unadopted open spaces, including footpaths, lanes, kerbs, car parks and roads, in Aberdeen, where responsibility for the maintenance of such spaces was previously a matter for Government agencies. We have considered the petition previously. Do members have strong views on how we should deal with it?

The petition relates to an important issue for Aberdeen that has caused grief to many residents whom it has affected. It is clear from the response that we have received that the Government sees this as a local problem. I am not sure that the committee, as a parliamentary body, is in a position to take the petition further. We should close it and refer the matter back to the area concerned.

I agree with Nanette Milne, not for the first time in this Aberdeen edition of the Public Petitions Committee. I am aware that the problem causes grief across the country, but it happens to be particularly common in Aberdeenshire. I do not know what we can do to address the general problem of how open land in new-build schemes is dealt with, but I suggest that we close the petition.

Are members minded to close the petition on the grounds that have been set out?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Education Maintenance Allowance (PE1079)

PE1079, from Laura Long, calls on the Parliament to urge the Government to review the eligibility conditions for educational maintenance allowances, to take account of the number of children in a household who are between the ages of 16 and 19 and in full-time education. Would members like to comment on the petition?

I am inclined to keep the petition open. The Government is looking to change the arrangements for means testing so that they are in line with changes to further and higher education. Recently, there have been problems with that transition, mainly because current students were not aware that changes were being made. We should ask the Government to provide us with an update once the review has taken place and to give an indication of the timescale. We should seek reassurance that young people and parents will be made aware of the fact that changes are to be introduced and of the nature of those changes, as that was a problem with the recent changes to higher education.

That is a reasonable request. EMAs affect all of us in our constituency work. Although the system might throw up issues, for the beneficiaries it has made a real difference to access to further education. Do members agree to Claire Baker's recommendation on how we pursue that matter?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Local Museums (PE1083)

The next petition is PE1083. Malcolm Chisholm MSP has joined us for our consideration of the petition. I thank him for his patience—I first told him that we would consider the petition at about 3 o'clock, then I said 4 o'clock, and then we were haggling about whether it would be half past 4 or quarter to 5. He has pitched up at 4.35, which shows a commitment to the issue and a willingness to pursue it. If he had not done that, he might eventually have ended up as a trophy in Leith museum.

Petition PE1083, by John Arthur, calls on the Parliament to urge the Executive to support the creation of local museums, such as the proposed Leith museum. Malcolm Chisholm has previously commented to the committee on the petition. Members probably do not contest the issue, but I ask Malcolm Chisholm to add any comments.

The situation has moved on a bit since the previous time that the petition was considered. We have had a positive response from the City of Edinburgh Council on support. To be fair, the Government is waiting until a proposal is produced, so I have no criticisms of Linda Fabiani's response. However, I hope that National Museums Scotland will co-operate fully with the planned feasibility study. The Leith museum group recognises that the study is the next step forward and I believe that the group has people lined up to do it.

Obviously, National Museums Scotland has a general interest in museums but, more specifically, it is relevant because of the Leith museum group's interest in the customs house in Leith, which National Museums Scotland uses for storage. I hope that the Government will encourage National Museums Scotland to get involved and to listen positively to any proposals. That is the way ahead. I hope that the committee is willing to support that approach and will use its influence to try to persuade National Museums Scotland and the Government to respond in that way.

Again, I declare an interest as an Edinburgh list member and as a known supporter of the idea of a Leith museum. I support the suggestion of keeping the petition alive and writing to the Government, National Museums Scotland and Museums Galleries Scotland to find out how all the stakeholders can get together and take the project as far as possible and, I hope, to completion at some point.

There is not much disagreement. We want as many of the key players nationally and locally and in the local authority to pull together to consider whether an application could be made. Do members support Robin Harper's recommendation and the constituency member's suggestions?

Members indicated agreement.

I thank Mr Chisholm for his patience.

---

Further Education Lecturers <br />(Pay and Conditions) (PE1088)

The next petition is PE1088, by Dr Robert Leslie, on behalf of the Educational Institute of Scotland's North Glasgow College branch, which calls on the Parliament to conduct an inquiry into the salary levels and conditions of further education lecturing staff, who at present are seriously disadvantaged when compared with university lecturers and school teachers. The Parliament is not undertaking any review process. Do members have any views or comments on the petition? The matter is for colleges and their staff, perhaps in discussion with the relevant Government minister on the outlines. Is it appropriate to keep the petition alive, given that that is the best way to address the issues?

Robin, is that a quizzical look on your face or is it just age?

Perhaps we should keep the petition alive for just one more letter.

Who would you propose sending it to—the Queen?

We could get another update from the Scottish Government—no?

Are members happy with that suggestion? The other option is simply to close the petition.

I am not sure what we would gain by keeping it open.

If Robin Harper feels that strongly about it, I am happy to seek an update from the Government.

I do not want to give the Parliament—or, rather, the Government—too much to do. Given that a sub-group is examining the issue, I am happy to close the petition.

Unlike the situation in higher education, the further education colleges do not have a central negotiating body. After reading the letter from Howard McKenzie, which refers to meetings between the Association of Scotland's Colleges and the Scottish Trades Union Congress, I wonder whether it is worth keeping the petition open and contacting the association about the issues. I really do not think that the Government will give us anything that will be of any use to us.

I should declare an interest as a member of the EIS, although I belong to the secondary school section, not the FE section. That union and other associated unions have the capacity to raise and negotiate salary issues with key employers through whatever the negotiating structure is. In this case, we are talking about autonomous boards, the structure of which might change over the next five or 10 years. In any case, that is at least an avenue to explore.

Given that the issues can be dealt with through traditional trade union negotiations, I see no reason for keeping the petition open. It is not that I am unsympathetic to FE lecturers—having seen their salary scales, of course I am sympathetic to their situation—it is simply that I am concerned about the process, and that a mechanism exists to address the various salary and remuneration issues. As a result, I recommend that we close the petition, unless members feel otherwise inclined.

Having listened to your arguments, convener, I think that we should close the petition.

Are members agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

I wish that I could be as compelling in the chamber as I have been in the past two and a half minutes.

---

National Proof-of-age Card (PE1090)

Our final petition, PE1090, is by John Drummond, on behalf of the Scottish Grocers Federation, and it calls on the Parliament to urge the Government to introduce a free national proof-of-age card for all 12 to 26-year-olds. Mr Drummond has been waiting patiently in the public gallery.

Do members have any strong views on how to deal with this issue? I think that the matter remains unresolved. Indeed, I realise that I might be abusing my position as committee convener, but I must point out that issues of enforcement and the role of local shop staff in dealing with uncertainties over age profiles are very much current in my constituency. They are also part of the wider debate about the Minister for Public Health's recent proposals on access to cigarettes at point of sale and the arguments that the Cabinet Secretary for Justice has continued to make about access to alcohol, both of which will have good and bad implications for grocers and shopkeepers in our constituencies.

As I say, I think that we need to pursue a number of issues that are raised in the petition. Do members have any other suggestions?

I am quite happy with your suggestion. I presume that we will seek an update from the Government on the progress that it is making.

I am very encouraged by the response to date and to learn about the discussions on devising a strategy for taking forward the Young Scot card. That seems to be the way ahead. There is no harm in waiting to see how it is progressed.

We have a note that states that the head of tobacco and sexual health policy and Young Scot are to devise a strategy to take the proof-of-age element forward. We should keep the petition open and track the progress of that work to see whether we can arrive at a consensus in the sector. A lot of small shopkeepers feel that the burden is consistently placed on them, but they do not have the resource base or staff time to deal with the matter as easily as we in the Parliament would like.

We should keep up the pressure. As a committee, half of our job is to take problems and give them to somebody else, but in this case there is a clear solution. Although I am not in favour of identity cards, a proof-of-age card is a different matter. Such a card already exists, and we are clear that it could solve a number of problems for people—not just grocers, but others. We should express enthusiasm for it and give it as much support as we can muster, because we can actually achieve something.

I keep telling people that I am under 40, but they do not believe me, so the card could be useful.

I would like to—

Get a card like that as well? [Laughter.]

I support what Nigel Don said, but I also repeat my concern about the amount of information that could be held on the card. That must be monitored.

That is on the record. Robin Harper has taken that position consistently.

I thank members for their time, and I thank the petitioners who are in the public gallery for their patience.