Official Report 276KB pdf
A90 Deceleration Lane (PE1020)
Item 2 is new petitions. Our first new petition is PE1020, from Councillor Paul Melling, on behalf of his constituents in Portlethen South—ward 60 in Aberdeenshire—which calls on the Scottish Parliament to consider and debate the safety issues in relation to the requirement to construct a deceleration lane for access to the Bruntland Road junction in Portlethen South from the A90. Councillor Melling will make a brief statement to the committee in support of his petition.
Good morning, convener, and thank you for allowing me to speak in support of petition PE1020, which was handed to you on 8 November 2006. The petition requests the Scottish Parliament to consider and debate the safety issues in relation to the requirement to construct a deceleration lane for access to the entrance to Portlethen South at the Bruntland Road junction off the A90 dual carriageway.
The clerks can arrange that and we will circulate the information to members as the debate continues.
Thank you. Various letters have been sent to the various bodies to ask for a review of the junction, but to no avail. We also have letters in support of the petition from Aberdeenshire Council's Kincardine and Mearns area committee and so on. It may be seen from the photographs that the junction is very bad. It is a staggered junction across the A90 dual carriageway with bus stops on either side. Access is provided to a cottage on the northbound side of the carriageway, where a slip road to local farms was also recently constructed. When that happened, I expected a slip road to be constructed on the southbound carriageway into Bruntland Road, but that did not happen.
Thank you, Councillor Melling. Has your local authority calculated the cost that would be incurred by providing a deceleration lane? How far would it run, and what would be the cost of building a lane of that length?
To my knowledge, the authority has not costed the proposal. However, the roads engineer to Aberdeenshire Council has presented a variety of scenarios for the junction. Unfortunately, the briefing is not included in the petition, because I received it only after the petition had been submitted, but it shows the options that are available. I would like options D and E to be adopted. I understand that it is rather early to cost the proposal. If the committee is minded to support the petition, the authority will have to examine the engineering content of what is proposed. I am asking for a deceleration lane of sufficient length to enable the traffic on the inside lane of the A90 to slow down there—as the word "deceleration" suggests. At the moment traffic slows down on the A90, which means that there is a danger of large lorries up-ending or having other vehicles go into the back of them.
Thank you for bringing your petition before us today. Presumably you have discussed the issue at length with Transport Scotland, which is less than sympathetic to your proposal.
That is correct. As I said, a number of years ago the manager of BEAR Scotland came to my house, where I gave him photographs of the junction and expressed my concerns about it. When he left, he said that he would raise the issue. It came up at a meeting of the area committee at which the Enterprise, Transport and Lifelong Learning Department was represented, but nothing has happened yet.
Do you feel that your proposal is being turned down on grounds of cost or because it is not necessary?
I do not know. I refer to the letter that I received from the Minister for Transport, which said that he was well aware of the proposal and that it was being considered but that he did not think that it was a priority. I cannot say whether it is not seen as a priority on grounds of cost or because it is not necessary.
Do you have figures for the projected increase in the volume of traffic on the road? The current situation may be bad, but is it projected that the volume of traffic will increase?
A large development is under way at Portlethen. I do not want to confuse the committee, but I would like to give members an indication of the development's scale. The sheet that I am holding up shows what is to be built at one of the junctions that are currently closed. When I was trying to interest the Executive in my proposal, we had a series of traffic problems at another junction, the Badentoy turn-off, where we had to build an additional slip road. We were hoping to get a further slip road built because of the danger of increasing traffic coming in at the south end of Portlethen, given that the north entrance is shut and the junction in the middle is somewhat congested. When the development has been built, traffic will increase in the vicinity of the entrances to and exits from Portlethen.
Good morning, Councillor Melling. In your presentation, you mentioned that the second entrance into Porthlethen was closed. Could you explain why that entrance was closed?
It is all part of the development that we are getting in Portlethen. The entrance was shut while an extra lane was developed to help to mitigate traffic problems. That junction, which is not the Bruntland Road one, is the major access into Portlethen and the immediate community, shops and so on for traffic coming off the A90. Because of the anticipated increase in volumes, it was decided to put in an extra lane at the junction, so it was temporarily a restricted entrance into Portlethen.
I notice from the papers that you have made representations to Nicol Stephen, who was Minister for Transport at the time, and Mike Rumbles, who is here this morning. Were those representations in the form of meetings or letters? My second question is about the development that you are talking about. Have you met the developers and planning officials to consider whether there might be any scope for the developers to be involved in financing a slip road? I know that that regularly gets done in Fife. When we need access to a new housing development, part of the negotiations is that the developer has to finance a new slip road. To what extent have such negotiations happened?
My correspondence with Nicol Stephen is in another A4 binder at home. My concern when I wrote to him was the development of the Aberdeen western peripheral route—we are going back three or four years now. I wrote and spoke to him to raise my concerns, and I presented what I felt was a good case for developing the A90 from Stonehaven to Aberdeen and giving it motorway status or something equivalent.
I apologise for being late; I made the mistake of going out of the building and could not get back in. That may be the fault of all the security that we have today, or it may just be me.
The figures that you seek are included in the petition.
Has cognisance been taken of the figures that you have provided for incidents and accidents?
Yes—they are included in consideration of the proposal. There have been a number of accidents and a fatality at the junction. I appeal to the committee to help me to prevent that from happening again. I am particularly concerned by the danger that the bus stops on the junction pose. Members can see from the photographs that have been provided that there is also a house entrance at the junction. Because it is a staggered junction, at times it is congested with vehicles trying to get in and out. The photographs show vehicles and buses trying to get in and out at the junction. That is quite a concern for me.
This morning, the committee is joined by Mike Rumbles and David Davidson, who are local MSPs who have an interest in the petition.
I want to add to what Paul Melling has said. People have lived with the junction since the A90 was built, and over the years the volume of traffic has increased tremendously. The junction is so dangerous that I never use it when travelling into Portlethen. As Paul has described, if someone travels south from Aberdeen and turns into Portlethen at the southern entrance, they must slow right down and take a sharp left turn off the A90, which is a dual carriageway. All the traffic that is travelling at 70mph, at least, behind them must break or transfer lanes; the problems are horrendous.
I am delighted to support Councillor Melling. He has been talking this morning about what he has been doing since he became a councillor in 2003. I had a meeting with Lewis Macdonald about a series of junctions, including the one in question, about two years before that election.
Okay, I will ask members to suggest how we can take it forward.
Road safety is paramount, and it is dreadful when we see the sheer carnage and loss of life that there was at the weekend.
I do not disagree with any of that. I have considerable sympathy with the petition, but I am conscious that we are not considering it in the context of other pressures that may exist. It does not take me to tell the committee that roads elsewhere may represent a greater danger in terms of the number of fatalities. Although it does not diminish the petition before us, we need to understand that.
I have an additional suggestion. It might be interesting to have the views of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents. We could write to it and ask what it thinks of the priorities of Transport Scotland or the Executive and whether their assessment of the road is correct.
John Scott mentioned Transport Scotland. It is worth writing to it directly to find out whether it has any useful information about the road.
Thank you for that, convener. Mike Rumbles spoke about coming off the A90 at the Bruntland Road junction, but I omitted to mention that I do that quite regularly. As Mike Rumbles says, it is not possible to come off at the junction at a greater speed than 20mph—drivers have to decelerate on the A90 to no more than that speed. When the junction was clear one day, I tried to come off the road at 25mph and ended up going across the white line at Bruntland Road. That is the sort of speed drivers need to keep to in order to access the junction at present.
We include the Official Report of meetings with the correspondence that we send to organisations so your points will be contained in that. I am sure that they will take your comments on board when they respond to us. Thanks very much for bringing your petition to us this morning.
Thank you.
As the next petitioner has not yet arrived, with the committee's agreement, we will skip to our third new petition this morning.
Assisted Suicide<br />(Opposition to Legislation) (PE1031)
Our next new petition is PE1031 by Professor Donald M MacDonald. It calls on members of the Scottish Parliament to oppose the introduction of any legislation that would permit assisted suicide. Professor MacDonald will make a brief statement to the committee in support of his petition. He is supported this morning by Canon Donald MacKay and the Rev Alex J MacDonald. I welcome you all to the committee. You have a few minutes to speak and then we will discuss the issue that you have brought before us.
Good morning and thank you, convener, for the opportunity to address your committee. Just a year ago, there was an unsuccessful attempt to introduce a member's bill to legalise assisted suicide. Many of us are concerned that such a bill might well be introduced in the new session. The petition is to request MSPs to oppose the introduction of a member's bill that would legalise assisted suicide for people who suffer from incurable or terminal illnesses.
Thank you, Professor MacDonald. I invite members to put questions to the petitioners.
Good morning. I notice from the papers that are before us that the British Medical Association appears to have changed its stance on assisted suicide. Last year it was neutral, but now it is opposed to it. Does the same apply to any of the other professional organisations? Would you like to expand on that matter?
Even before the BMA changed its position, the professional associations for palliative care, general practitioners and geriatricians were opposed to physician-assisted suicide; they have never had to alter their stance on the matter. Only the BMA temporarily had a neutral stance, although it did not support physician-assisted suicide. However, at its annual general meeting last year, it opposed physician-assisted suicide—much less than 40 per cent of doctors support physician-assisted suicide.
You have a disease that is slowly degenerative, for which you have my sympathy, and you want to live regardless of the disease—that is your choice. You have such a disease and you choose to continue to live, but is it right to remove the choice of someone else who has the same debilitating disease, who is of sound mind and who wishes to end their life and not live with the disease for 20 or 30 years? Should that person have the choice?
The problem with the idea that people should be able to decide when to end their lives is that it is based on patient or personal autonomy. As a Christian, I resist that, because I believe that our lives are in God's hands. However, even those who do not believe in God have a duty not only to themselves, but to society in general—to other people. Nobody lives to himself or herself alone. Another person's life is important to me, as my life should be important to them. My deciding to end my life would not mean that another person had a duty to aid me in that.
You will know that Jeremy Purvis's bill was dropped because not enough MSPs supported it. Did you lodge the petition to ensure that no similar bill is introduced in the next parliamentary session? No similar legislation is proposed at present.
That is correct. We believe that Jeremy Purvis or somebody else may well try to reintroduce such a bill. At the Westminster Parliament, further attempts may be made to legislate for the whole United Kingdom. We want to pre-empt that by persuading people now.
I will pursue that point. Scots law is clear: euthanasia is unacceptable and is considered contrary to law. The bill proposal that our Liberal colleague Jeremy Purvis introduced fell because of insufficient support from MSPs. Does anything suggest that that level of support will change so that a proposal from a similar quarter would be supported?
I know of no evidence and I have heard of no movement among MSPs that would change the position. However, we want to make our views known.
Absolutely—but perhaps you should take some comfort from that position.
I have not contacted that MSP, but I believe from press reports that he intends to reintroduce such a bill, although I know of no definite plans for that to be done.
Notwithstanding any individual's persistence, given the current crop of MSPs, it is unlikely that such a bill would attract more support.
The committee is joined by Alasdair Morrison MSP, who has an interest in the petition. Do you want to comment before we deliberate the petition?
I thank the convener and his clerking team for their assistance. I distributed the petition throughout my constituency in a few weeks, during which some 2,500 people supported it. All members have a copy of the petition, which simply says that
I should probably declare an interest in that I am the convener of the Parliament's cross-party group on palliative care, so I obviously have an interest in the subject. Just for the record, I have been involved in the group for almost eight years since the inception of the Parliament, during which I have been amazed at the progress that has been made in palliation and the hospice movement. Only recently, for example, agreement was reached on developing another hospice in Lanarkshire, although there is still much more work to be done. We have seen new hospices for children, and hospices have been developed in the Highlands and elsewhere as palliation and the hospice movement grows, but much more positive work can be done.
I would support that action. Today's discussion has been valuable—I was not aware that Britain has been a world leader in developing palliative care. That is new information to me and I am pleased to hear it and that Scotland is playing an important part.
Given the gentlemen's responsibilities in various parishes across the country, would it be appropriate to ask them about their professional experience and how they interact with parishioners?
If either of two reverend gentlemen wants to make short contribution, they can.
I am very happy to be associated with the petition and the convener's comments about palliative care being highly developed. That is great news, as is the news that the Scottish Parliament does not seem to be heading swiftly down the road of supporting assisted suicide. I do not think that palliative care and its development would rest easily with a country that also supported assisted suicide.
I will give one example. A man suffered a stroke. To begin with, it was clear that he was so frustrated and depressed that he was not eating. A person in such a situation could feel suicidal. However, after a little while, with care in the hospital and with the support of friends and so on, he is making a recovery and is much more positive, although he has limited communication. People may undergo a stage of feeling that they want physician-assisted suicide, but with the right care, that can pass.
Okay. Will we write to seek the responses of the Executive and the SPPC to the issue that the petitioners have raised?
I thank the petitioners for presenting their petition.
Scheduled and Listed Buildings (Management) (PE1013)
Our next petition is PE1013, by Niall Campbell, who calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive to review the arrangements for managing scheduled and listed buildings, such as Rowallan old castle, to ensure that when owners have made suitable and sensitive plans for restoring such buildings in a way that will allow public access, such developments are encouraged to proceed.
First, I apologise on behalf of Mr John Campbell, who was meant to be here but had to call off because the meeting was rescheduled.
Thank you, Mr Campbell. I invite questions from members.
Good morning and welcome. You spoke of a change of heart by Historic Scotland in 1997. What caused that change of heart?
There was simply a change of personnel.
Is it accepted practice that a change of personnel can lead to a change of policy or a change to undertakings previously given?
It appears to be. We have exhibited letters showing that we had reached an agreement with Historic Scotland on a certain way forward. However, things gradually changed. Over a period of a few years, as other people became more interested in what we were doing, and after we had gained planning permission—which was the main thing—and had renovated the access, Historic Scotland suddenly wanted to retain guardianship of the castle.
You spoke about being misled by Historic Scotland at the second public inquiry over the details required in your planning application. Would you care to speculate over whether that was deliberate?
Well, it was fairly deliberate—there is no question about that. Historic Scotland had sent us a full and detailed list of ways in which we could convert the building and I had asked about what we could do to bring it into our guardianship. Work would be done while the building was still in the guardianship of Historic Scotland, but the guardianship would then be passed on. We would agree to a certain timescale on offering public access—which is obviously what we want to do with the whole estate. However, Historic Scotland then seemed to take a completely different view. It wanted to open the castle itself—we can see no other reason for the change of mind.
I was fascinated to hear about this proposal and I am quite positive about it. It is unique in having support at all levels—including support from the local community and the local council. There will clearly be an economic benefit—and I say that as someone who represents an area encompassing Loch Lomond and a golf course that might perhaps rival yours.
Some time ago, I met Des Browne MP and the then Scottish Office minister, Calum MacDonald MP, but of course the matter was immediately referred to Historic Scotland, so we were going round in circles. Mr MacDonald is no longer there, but we have been entirely supported by our MSP, Margaret Jamieson, and by Des Browne.
If guardianship were transferred back to you as the owners, what kind of public access would you ensure?
We have stated that we have opened the castle no more than half a dozen times in the past few years, but we would guarantee a minimum of 25 times. We want to bring it into full use for the local community. There is a massive amount of work that we could do. We could use it as a gallery or for local weddings.
I see that you also raise the issue of scheduled monument consent. I was astonished to find out that you could go through all this trouble to make an application but there is no timescale for Historic Scotland to respond to you. Have I picked that up correctly?
Yes.
That is incredible. Has Historic Scotland given you any indication that it is likely to respond soon?
Since this petition has come to the fore, we have heard that Historic Scotland will respond on 7 February. James Simpson told me that this morning.
Excellent.
Before I bring him in, I apologise to Mr Simpson. We appear to have got your name wrong on the name-plate in front of you. If you would like to make your contribution now, we will be happy to hear it.
The wrong son of Zebedee, convener.
I am interested in your precognition statement and the information that you have given us on the Historic Environment Advisory Council for Scotland, which is extremely enlightening. Will you expand on the proposal to have a national collection with an acquisitions policy? You quote the report by HEACS, which suggests that it might be appropriate to assess whether there are any properties
The Historic Environment Advisory Council's duty is to advise the Minister for Tourism, Culture and Sport. The report on properties in care and the report on a possible review of the legislation were sent to Patricia Ferguson at around the same time, in July last year. Both reports rest with the minister. We have received a letter and a preliminary reply from her, but not a formal or a detailed response.
That is helpful; thank you very much. We wish you both well. The petition is extremely worth while. Well done.
As someone who usually actively seeks to get Historic Scotland to list a building—especially in Glasgow, where so many buildings have been demolished before they have been listed—I find it astonishing that when someone comes along who wants to improve a listed building, Historic Scotland acts in such an unhelpful way. I am fully supportive of the petition. Is Historic Scotland being obtuse in this instance? Is there a reason for its attitude?
I would hate to decry everybody in Historic Scotland, which has some really good people. There is probably just a view among the upper echelons of management about people such as me who come along and try to disrupt the properties that they manage. Perhaps they think that if there were fewer monuments around, they might not have a job—I do not know. We have found it difficult to deal with the agency. That is all I want to say on the matter.
You said that much of the restoration work that was carried out during the past 50 years was not good quality, given current practice. Are you proposing to restore areas in which work was badly done?
Absolutely. As I said, James Simpson has completed a full conservation plan. We examined every available document, we got a terrific archaeologist to look at the castle and we discovered stuff. One cannot decry what was done in the past, because it is reasonable to expect that certain practices will have changed. However, I think that James Simpson would agree that even some of the more recent work has been below standard. A classic example is the door into the main salon, which was taken down and put back incorrectly—it is a metre out. It is almost a pastiche of what it should be. I am conscious that, in a lot of projects of this nature, guys come along and promise to restore a building and make it all-singing and all-dancing, only to be hoist by their own petard. However, I assure members that we have researched the matter thoroughly and know most things about it.
Thank you. I wish you every success in a project that would be of huge benefit to the whole of Ayrshire.
We are joined by Margaret Jamieson, who is the local member and has an interest in the matter. Do you want to add anything?
Yes. I want to ensure that colleagues have a broad understanding of the situation. I have worked with Niall Campbell since 1999 in trying to broker a passage—I think that that is the best way of describing what we have been doing—between what he wants to do and what Historic Scotland thinks is its duty. I am concerned that the approach that Historic Scotland understands to be its duty to adopt fails to meet the needs of the community that I serve and the local community.
Thanks. Before I come to members, I will make my own observations. Having listened to what has been said by the petitioners this morning, I am concerned by Historic Scotland's position as both the manager and the protector of the castle. It seems necessary to rectify such a situation when it creates the circumstances under which a developer finds itself talking to Historic Scotland about a proposal and having to convince Historic Scotland of its merits because Historic Scotland has an eye on both sides of the argument. There must be some disaggregation of that role. I would like to know what the Executive wants to do to address such concerns. I would be interested to know what other members think we should do with the petition.
I agree whole-heartedly with the convener. This is a first-class petition. For me and people like me throughout Scotland who are really keen on historic buildings, it is good that the petitioners have brought the matter to our attention. I suggest that we agree with the convener's proposal but that we also seek views on the petition from Historic Scotland, the Royal Commission on the Ancient and Historical Monuments of Scotland, the Royal Town Planning Institute and East Ayrshire Council. As usual, we should send a copy of the Official Report of this morning's discussion to those organisations. That would be helpful. I congratulate the petitioners.
I do not dispute any of that—those suggestions are valid. I highlight two points in particular that we hope that the Executive and the minister, rather than Historic Scotland, will take on board. The first is the point about transferring guardianship. Secondly, I do not know of any public agency that has unlimited deadlines in respect of applications. When will the scheduled monument consent application be dealt with?
I agree with all that has been said by Helen Eadie and Jackie Baillie. I find two points that Margaret Jamieson raised very concerning. On the fact that no money has been spent on the castle, can we ask Historic Scotland what conservation plans it has for the area and what its budget is for the castle?
Those are valid questions. We can get specific information on those issues.
May I leave a copy of the conservation plan with the committee? I also have copies of the two relevant HEACS reports with recommendations on whether there is a need to review heritage protection legislation and the criteria that should be used to assess whether a property should be in state care. I presume that those are in the Parliament's library, but if it would be helpful I am happy to leave copies.
If you leave those documents with the clerk, we will be able to access them.
Should we also invite the Executive to comment on whether, in light of the two reports, it will review the legislation or consider doing so in the future?
We can certainly include that in our letter to the Executive. Obviously we will let the petitioners see any response that we receive.
Bus Services (Funding) (PE1027)
Our next new petition is PE1027 by Kristina Woolnough, on behalf of Blackhall community association. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive, in the interests of social inclusion, to increase public funding for bus services, particularly in communities where such services are already limited, and to give an assurance that, if bus routes or timetables are to be axed or changed, members of the community are properly consulted. Before it was lodged formally, the petition was hosted on the e-petition system where, between 2 November 2006 and 15 January 2007, it gathered 206 signatures. A further 278 signatures were also submitted in hard copy.
I am here this morning to support the petition, partly because I want to applaud the dogged attempts of the Blackhall community association to get certain bus services, particularly the number 13 bus service, restored in the off-peak period and partly because the issues raised in the petition are important not only for the city of Edinburgh but for the whole country. Indeed, I have no doubt that all committee members could cite similar examples of services being withdrawn.
Petition PE1027 is important. I am sure that bus transport issues have been raised with every member present, particularly at meetings at which we interact with members of the community—certainly, I have heard those issues raised. Margaret Smith put the case for the petition particularly well.
I agree with everything that Helen Eadie said. A couple of issues have been raised that are experienced in all cities. One issue that should be considered is the fact that under the legislation there is no duty to consult. Another issue is the fact that the Scottish Executive published a bus action plan in December 2006, which states that there should be improved communication with stakeholders. Has there been any feedback on the implementation of the plan by bus companies? I agree with Helen Eadie's recommendations, but we should raise those two issues specifically in our letter to the Executive.
I have no problem with the recommendations or with the broad thrust of the petition. However, I am curious. Although the petition refers to meetings with the City of Edinburgh Council, the regional transport partnerships have a key role, particularly in relation to providing subsidy for services. Given Margaret Smith's knowledge of the situation, does she know whether meetings have taken place with the regional transport partnership? The aims and objectives of the bus action plan specifically refer to bus forums being formed in each local authority area, so the obvious question is whether there is such a forum for Edinburgh.
I am not aware of exactly what the campaigners have done and to whom they have spoken. Blackhall community association has taken forward the campaign on the bus route in question, and other people are campaigning on the matter in the city. It may well be that some people in the wider bring back our buses campaign have talked to the south-east Scotland transport partnership, but I am not aware that they have done so and I do not believe that they have. I am also not aware of any bus forum in Edinburgh.
I understood that, and I hope I made it clear at the start of my comments that I agree with the broad thrust of the petition. By way of offering helpful advice, I point out that when a similar situation arose on my patch I went to the regional transport partnership, and that bus service is now back on. I am trying to be helpful.
I am always happy to take advice from Ms Baillie. I am currently quite hopeful—I cannot be any more than that—that the campaigners have put their argument very well to the council. Bearing in mind the fact that budgets will be set on, I believe, 8 February, I am holding fire—there are other people who may be subjected to full arguments about the matter—until I see what the council has done in response to campaigning by people from Blackhall and from around the city and to committee reports produced within the council as a result of the campaigns. The campaigns have put the matter back into the melting pot as an issue to be decided on when budgets are set. Once we have the council's response, we will be in a better position to see whether we need to take the issue involving specific routes to a regional level or elsewhere.
When I look out on the streets of Edinburgh, I imagine that there is an abundance of buses, because I see them nose to tail along Princes Street and elsewhere in the city centre. However, I accept that a problem exists out on the periphery. In my area, bus services are a constant problem. My mailbag is full of complaints from people who decry them.
John Farquhar Munro gets to the nub of the issue. If bus companies wish to change or cut services, they must take particular steps. Councils, the traffic commissioner and others are involved.
I do not want a question-and-answer session. We have had suggestions on how to progress the petition and we have had a good airing of the issues.
That is fine.
John Scott will speak next, unless John Farquhar Munro has another point to make. Margaret Smith is not here to be questioned or to give evidence; she came to support the petition. We are not here to quiz her on the whys and wherefores of buses in the Lothian area or in Edinburgh.
Margaret Smith has made a good case. Anybody who listened to her presentation would be convinced that an argument exists. My question is how we involve the public so that they are aware of proposed cuts by bus companies. That is a big problem. Bus companies are required to advise the traffic commissioner 42 days in advance, so I suggest that some arrangement should be put in place also to advise local authorities, after which local authorities can advise the public.
You are right. That is where local members of regional transport partnerships come in.
I planned to talk about that. I thought that local councillors were members of regional transport partnerships. Margaret Smith spoke about a democratic deficit. I would have thought that those councillors would make the case for services.
The figure is probably several hundred. As the change had a knock-on effect in relation to the removal of a bus service in a neighbouring area, several thousand people have been affected in the past year, one way or another. Certainly, in the Blackhall area, several hundred people have been affected, and it is difficult for them to walk to the next bus stop. People at the school are also affected. If we included all the children who attend the school, another several hundred people would be affected. Most of them are probably not affected by the loss of the bus service in the afternoon, but some of them are.
We have heard suggestions on how to progress the petition. Are members happy with that?
We will send the petitioners the responses and give them the opportunity to comment. I thank Margaret Smith for her contribution.
Independence Day Public Holiday (PE1029)
Our next petition is PE1029 from John Black, on behalf of the Scottish Jacobite Party. Before being formally lodged, the petition was hosted on the e-petition system where, between 24 October 2006 and 8 January 2007, it gathered 14 signatures. The petition calls on the Parliament to debate issues around freedom and independence before the election to inform the views of the electorate and to consider and debate whether 4 May 2007 should be declared a public holiday to be known as independence day.
As someone who is pushing for independence, I would prefer Scotland to have independence before we declared an independence day. I thank Mr Black and others for submitting the petition, but I agree with some of the comments that have been made about the petition on the e-petition system. I suggest that we close petition PE1029. The public and others would be better served if the issue were to be raised in a general election campaign.
On this occasion, Sandra White is absolutely right. Although the petition is very interesting, I will share with members—and thereby put on the record—exactly what the Scottish Jacobite Party is about. It proposes to move the Scottish-English border south, to run from Carnforth on the west coast of Lancashire to Flamborough Head on the east coast of Yorkshire. In so doing, Scotland would gain Carlisle, Durham, Sunderland, Teesside and Tyneside. I wonder what people in those places would say about that. Even more interestingly, Newcastle United Football Club, Sunderland AFC and Middlesbrough Football Club would joint the Scottish Premier League, which would—of course—be nationalised. The petition is fascinating, but we should move on.
I propose that we close petition PE1029. Is that agreed?
Spoilsports.
Human Rights Abuses (China) (PE1030)
Our next petition is PE1030, by Owain Robertson. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to support an investigation into Chinese human rights abuses, such as those that are allegedly committed against Tibetan refugees, and to support a boycott of the 2008 Olympics in Beijing. Before being formally lodged, the petition was hosted on the e-petition system where, between 3 November 2006 and 22 January 2007, it gathered 80 signatures.
Obviously, the petition is on a matter that is reserved to Westminster. Given that the petitioner feels strongly on the subject, it would be appropriate to refer him to his Westminster MP. The matter should go before Westminster. I suggest that we close petition PE1030.
I have read the petition and have also been active in asking questions on the issues involved. China's human rights abuses are absolutely appalling. Even the Scottish Parliament has commented on the matter, as have Westminster and the European Union. I am aware of the reserved nature of the issues that the petition raises, but the Scottish Parliament should be concerned that the Executive has a strategy of stronger engagement with China. Jack McConnell is actively involved in the strategy: he has visited China and has encouraged people from China to come to Scotland—he is active in developing the partnership.
If you do not want us to close the petition, what do you want us to do with it?
I would like to send it to the Executive and to the First Minister, asking for his comments on it. He has visited China under the strategy. I would even advise the petitioner to take the petition to Europe, from where a stronger case could be made. However, as we are involved, I would like to have Jack McConnell's comments on the matter.
I do not want to take issue with members over this, but I am conscious that we are not talking about sending the petition to the one place that has responsibility for the issue—Westminster. Although I am always engaged with the power of the Public Petitions Committee, my view is that simply keeping the petition open will not effect the kind of change that we all want. I have no problem with our sending the petition to the Executive and the First Minister for their information, but I think that we should also send it to the appropriate committee at Westminster. We should close the petition, recognising that dealing with the issue is wider than simply keeping a petition open.
I agree.
I support that. We can write to the First Minister, letting him know about the petition and all the information that it contains, and he can use that in any further discussions that he has. If we send the petition to Westminster, the MPs there can also use the information that it contains. I do not know what would be the purpose of our keeping the petition open. If information came back to us, what would we do with it?
Basically, the reason that I put forward for keeping the petition open is that I want to find out exactly what the Executive and the First Minister are doing through the strategy. That is where the petition links to the Scottish Parliament. I do not want to cause any disruption in the committee, but I sincerely care about what is happening in China—as Jackie Baillie says, we all do. I am trying to think of the best way in which to get information, not for us but for the petitioner. Would the petitioner get an answer back from the First Minister if we wrote to him and closed the petition? I am looking for a way to get information—that is what worries me.
It is important for the petitioner to get answers, but I feel strongly that the petition raises questions to which the Westminster Parliament is there to provide us with answers. No one is denying that the issue is important; we are simply saying that, if people want something changed, they should go where the change can be proposed most effectively. I therefore strongly support the view that has been expressed by the convener and Jackie Baillie that we should send the petition to Westminster. Committees at Westminster have a lot of power. We should ask specifically for the Westminster Parliament to engage directly with the petitioner on the matter.
I understand what members are saying. If the First Minister is engaged on the issue, the petitioner should get some information. However, I do not want to use the committee to raise people's hopes about things that the committee cannot address. There is absolutely nothing that the committee can do about the petition. We cannot get involved in organising a boycott of the 2008 Olympics. We must focus on what the petition asks us to do. It states clearly what it expects us to do, and we cannot do that. Therefore, it would be wrong to raise the petitioner's hopes that the committee can do what the petition asks for.
I take on board what you say. The point that I am making is that the Scottish Parliament, the First Minister and MSPs are involved in creating a sustainable, stronger engagement with China. If you are saying that we should send the petition to the First Minister and the relevant committee at Westminster, asking that they send the petitioner information based on the questions that are asked in the petition, I will go along with that rather than cause a disruption in the committee. Are you saying that we will ask the First Minister to answer the questions that the petitioner has asked?
That is exactly what I am suggesting that we do. I appreciate that you are trying to enable the committee to reach a consensus—that is what I want, too.
Okay.
Do members agree to take that course of action?
Solicitors (PE1021)
PE1021 was lodged by Bill Alexander and calls on the Scottish Parliament to investigate the availability of solicitors who are prepared to act against other solicitors in cases of negligence or inadequate service, the role of the Law Society of Scotland in such cases and the physical and financial impact of such cases on complainers.
The matter has concerned members throughout our time in the Parliament. It is clear that some progress has been made, but we need to clarify the current position. We should ask the Scottish Executive for an update on its scoping work on people who cannot get legal representation when cost is not the problem. We should also ask the Executive for an update on the implementation of sections 25 to 29 of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1990, in relation to section 32 of the Solicitors (Scotland) Act 1980. That information would be helpful.
I have raised that issue over the years. By now, we would have expected a commencement order on sections 25 to 29 of the 1990 act, given that equivalent provisions have been law in England since 1990. Recently, a freedom of information case went to appeal at the Court of Session and three judges ruled that information on the commencement of sections 25 to 29, such as interdepartmental papers, should be released. However, the Executive is resisting release. We are talking about a live issue.
Far from it. I think that Helen Eadie was suggesting that we ask for more information. It is worth noting that at First Minister's question time on 25 January, in response to a question from you, I think—
I have asked umpteen questions about the matter.
The First Minister said that sections 25 to 29 of the 1990 act would come into force in April. I mention that because the issue relates to the petition and because I take on board what you are saying. Helen Eadie suggests that we take the matter forward by requesting more information about the scoping—
I am being persistent, because no more than a couple of months ago the Minister for Justice said that it would happen in March—that has been the history of the issue.
I take your point. Are members happy that we write to the Executive to request the information that Helen Eadie suggests we seek? The information would help Margo MacDonald in the longer term, too.
Bottled Water Contracts (PE1028)
Let us go back to PE1028, which is by Sofiah MacLeod, on behalf of the Scottish Palestine Solidarity Campaign. It calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive and individual MSPs to cancel all contracts that they have with Eden Springs water company. Before being formally lodged, the petition was hosted on the e-petition system where, between 25 October and 31 December 2006, it gathered 884 signatures.
Springwells.
Everyone knows the area well—Margo MacDonald will know it particularly well. The research that we have been able to obtain through the clerks indicates that any connection with the Golan heights is no more than the fact that the area just up from Blantyre is called High Blantyre. Nothing appears to connect Eden Springs and Blantyre with the petition. Margo may have more information.
There is a scheme in High Blantyre that used to be called Jerusalem because it was white and had flat roofs.
That is right, but the council put in sloped roofs, and it is no longer called that.
There is some confusion, and I think that we should put some things on the record. The Scottish Parliament does not have a contract with Eden Springs, any subsidiary or any parent company—that is worth making clear.
I agree with Jackie. I was going to mention one or two points, but she has covered them.
Will we close the petition at that?
Next
Current Petitions