Public Petitions Committee, 16 Dec 2008

Meeting date: Tuesday, December 16, 2008

Official Report 241KB pdf

---

New Petitions

---

Sheriffhall Roundabout (PE1218)

The first new petition is PE1218, from Margot Russell, which calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to bring forward a timed and costed programme of works for the grade separation of the Sheriffhall roundabout on the A720 to alleviate pressure and traffic problems on the new A68 Dalkeith bypass. The constituency member for the area, Rhona Brankin, has come along to speak to the petition, and I invite her to make a statement.

Sheriffhall roundabout is a well-known problem roundabout. It is used by 70,000 vehicles a day, and it is the only junction on the Edinburgh city bypass that is not grade separated. The problems affecting it cause major and serious hold-ups and have an impact on my constituents, many of whom work in Edinburgh, and on economic development in Midlothian, the city of Edinburgh, East Lothian and West Lothian.

I will give you a flavour of the developments that are going to be taking place in the areas around the Sheriffhall junction. In Midlothian alone, by 2022, there will be around an additional 9,000 housing units, and there is scheduled to be an additional 81 hectares of development land, plus some land that will be developed at Millerhill, which could include a waste management facility. There is a potential expansion to 1,000 spaces at the Sheriffhall park-and-ride facility. Further, in Shawfair, which is an area to the south of Edinburgh, a 130-bedroom hotel is scheduled to open by 2009. There will also be additional retail development, and there is a proposal for a private hospital.

The decisions of a number of local authorities will impact on the situation. The City of Edinburgh Council is planning some housing developments on the scale of 2,800 units in the area around the Sheriffhall roundabout. Also in that council's area, the centre for biomedical research is due to open at Little France, which is close to the roundabout. Many of the people who will work there, as well as at Edinburgh royal infirmary, will come from my constituency. Plans have been submitted to the council for a care home and a care village in the Edmonstone estate, which is near the roundabout.

The west Edinburgh planning framework review has secured allocations to safeguard airport expansion, land for office headquarters and a new site for Scotland's national showground. There could also be an international business gateway in that area. Again, those developments will draw traffic from Midlothian, East Lothian and the Borders, which will have an effect on Sheriffhall.

East Lothian has plans for more than 7,000 additional housing units. Many people from East Lothian travel to work in Edinburgh. Further, more than 71 hectares of land in East Lothian is designated as development land.

There is the potential for Scottish Borders Council to allow the building of 8,400 houses, in addition to the current supply of 5,290 units. Some of that housing will have a regular impact on Sheriffhall junction.

A comparison of the travel-to-work data in the 1991 and 2001 censuses is interesting. In 1991, 1,600 people travelled to Edinburgh from the Borders for work, but by 2001 that figure was 2,803, which represents a 75 per cent increase. That trend is likely to increase.

The Sheriffhall roundabout is already a major pinch point for many people, and the situation will only get worse in the years to come. I urge the committee to consider seriously our petition in favour of grade separation.

I do not want to pounce on this petition, so I ask members not to take my comments in the spirit in which they might appear to be made. It is the third current petition about a matter that, although important, is a localised transport issue, so I am a little concerned that we are turning into a planning appeals committee—although that is not quite how Rhona Brankin is approaching the matter. We have a petition for a slip road on the A90 up by Portlethen and all sorts of demands about the A82. I am slightly concerned that, if we continue to take such petitions, we will be doing something different from what the Public Petitions Committee should do. I am not saying that we should ignore the petition or not come up with sensible answers to it, but perhaps we should draw some kind of line around what we will consider in future. Otherwise, every pressure group around the country that wants a roundabout, traffic lights or a bypass could come to us to air its grievances. I understand that, but it is not what we are here for.

I do not really want to say anything about Sheriffhall because it is not on my patch, although I understand the problem because I have driven on the road. However, I am a bit concerned about the general principle of what we are doing.

I appreciate the tremendous pressures that Rhona Brankin has outlined at the location concerned and the area that surrounds the same. However, Nigel Don has a point. My understanding—I am a tiro member of the committee and ask for the convener's advice on the matter—is that we can press a general case on the national transport policy that the Scottish Government follows through Transport Scotland but we should not consider requests in respect of particular putative projects, however serious and legitimate they are. There is a problem there.

I do not wish to disagree with my two colleagues' statements, but the Public Petitions Committee exists to serve a purpose and may be regarded as part of the process whereby local communities air their grievances against decision makers at whatever level. We should consider the petition because the petitioners have got together and submitted a petition to the committee and, until such time as we have refined or developed our role, we should accept and try to deal with the majority of the petitions that are presented to us.

As has been mentioned on several occasions, the committee is a unique part of the parliamentary and democratic process in that people can come straight to it if they feel aggrieved at local or national decisions. In the period that I have been a member of the committee, it has dealt with a number of localised issues and managed to get results. Because of that success, more petitioners will ask the committee for assistance.

It is incumbent on the committee to consider the petition. I have a number of suggestions for whom we should contact on it. We should contact the Scottish Government, Transport Scotland and the local authorities that have been referred to—East Lothian Council, Midlothian Council, the City of Edinburgh Council and Scottish Borders Council—to find out their views on what the impact would be on the through-flow of traffic and the developments that are proposed in the areas concerned if the upgrade on the roundabout that is being petitioned for did not happen. It is a matter of raising the issue and seeing what happens. In many cases, we should have the right, if not to question decisions that various agencies and local authorities throughout Scotland make, to get explanations of why they were taken.

I must declare an interest as a list MSP for the Lothians, including Edinburgh. That, of course, places some restrictions on my observations.

I agree with John Wilson that an issue exists. The national issue is that there could be greater clarity about how the Government and local authorities work out their strategies for developing transport. I am not talking only about roads—I am also talking about public transport and the design of communities so that we can reduce the number of cars on our roads and provide for more, much better and cheaper public transport in the future. I back John Wilson's call for the matter to be referred to the organisations that he mentioned in order to seek greater clarification on and understanding of whether the decisions that were taken about Sheriffhall roundabout were based on reasonable assumptions and whether there is a case for an overpass.

Perhaps the committee needs to consider urgently whether we should look at petitions on local matters. As a new member of the committee, I am not clear about that. It would be a good idea to seek clarity on the working out of transport issues—we all have our own agendas in that context—but an issue has been raised and given publicity, and I am not sure where we should go from here. Practically speaking, if Transport Scotland has recently looked at and made changes to Sheriffhall roundabout—perhaps Rhona Brankin can give us an update on that—there does not seem to be much point in writing to it again. However, I agree that we should ask for clarity on the national position on transport.

I am inclined to go along with what John Wilson said. Given that we have received other petitions on dual carriageway junctions, for example on the A90, perhaps a national issue exists. Why is there not a grade-separated junction at Sheriffhall, on the A90 and, I dare say, on several other roads? Perhaps we should get a policy from Transport Scotland on the grade separation of such heavily used junctions.

There are three or four issues. The initial discussion was about how we organise things, on which members have tried to get clarity. To use a cliché, we are in a chicken-and-egg situation, because certain issues cannot be raised, which is a difficulty. People say that they cannot get a petition through the system if it deals with a local issue, although the reality is that it is difficult for the committee to turn down dealing with such petitions, given the legislation that created the Parliament. We will always face that dilemma. However, we can try to get an awareness of whether we can pursue national issues as a result of petitions on local matters. The clerks can work on that over the next period.

To be fair to members, two or three good suggestions have been made. Nanette Milne talked about considering the principles of grade separation. How do Transport Scotland and other agencies arrive at priorities in considering grade separation, including on the road that Sheriffhall roundabout is on? John Wilson spoke about writing to organisations about the impact on planned new developments, and I think that Robin Harper touched on assessments of environmental impacts. We must ensure that assessments are based on the appropriate information.

From what committee members have said, I think that they want to keep the petition open, progress the recommendations that John Wilson identified and Nanette Milne touched on, and try to get responses. I do not know whether that is a reasonable suggestion that might assist local discussion of the issue.

Yes. The decision has been taken not to put in grade separation at this stage. Our submission is that the improvements that have been made at Sheriffhall are not solving the congestion and that, as Sheriffhall is a major part of Scotland's infrastructure, the failure to implement grade separation will not only be inconvenient but will have a major impact on the economy.

Thanks very much.

Members are divided on whether we should be considering the petition. The committee should consider petitions on issues that affect the general public at the moment, but this petition is about what will happen in the future.

The reality is that because we have a principle whereby the clerk works with petitioners to ensure that petitions are admissible, most petitions are admissible if they are framed in the correct language. That is the right principle to adopt, and it means that regardless of whether a petition deals with a present-day situation or a projected future situation, or tries to influence the debate on a policy area, we must consider it.

Many ordinary members of the public in Scotland come to the Public Petitions Committee. Constituency and regional members use the committee to highlight particular issues. I do not think that we can resolve matters, but we will take on board what members have said about some of the practical issues and ask Fergus Cochrane to employ the wisdom of Solomon as he tries to reconcile those contested issues for our benefit.

Ultimately, how we interpret a petition is down to the judgment that we as members of the Public Petitions Committee make on a given day. Some of us might want to pursue an issue, whereas others might be more protective of the committee's role. We will take on board what members have said and try to make progress. The suggestions that have been made are helpful.

I thank Rhona Brankin for her time.

---

Athletes (Rural Areas) (PE1219)

PE1219, by Christina Raeburn, calls on the Parliament to urge the Government to ensure that adequate funding is available to allow young talented athletes in rural areas to travel to competitions at regional and national level, and to provide coaching support and training facilities across Scotland so that no young talented athlete in a rural area is disadvantaged as a result of their location.

I am sure that most members have in their constituencies talented young sports performers who do not have the income, resources or support to allow them to compete in regional and national competitions, so I state the proviso that although the petition emanates from a rural area, I presume that there are broader principles that we must address. Do members have any comments?

Given that the Commonwealth games and the Olympics are coming up, the best way forward might be to refer the petition directly to the Health and Sport Committee for further consideration.

We would normally do that, but the clerks had a chat with the clerks to the Health and Sport Committee, which has almost concluded its report on pathways into sport and is not considering the aspect that the petition deals with as part of its inquiry. We will discuss what to do with the petition—which is a very good one—shortly, but referring it to the Health and Sport Committee might not be the best option at the moment.

Do members have any other observations?

If the normal practice of referring such petitions to the Health and Sport Committee is really not appropriate in this case, perhaps we should write to the Scottish Government to raise the issue of the impact of lottery funding that has been allocated to the 2012 Olympic games. We could also ask the Government how it will ensure that the standard of sports facilities is raised so that people who demonstrate a talent are able and encouraged to express it, and what plans it has to increase the number of Scottish athletes who break through at international level. We could also raise some of those issues with a selection of local authorities and sportscotland.

The petition highlights several issues. We hear talk of the lack of facilities in remote and rural areas, which needs to be addressed. To use training facilities, talented athletes must travel great distances from the remote parts of Scotland to central areas where such facilities are available—Edinburgh, Glasgow, Perth and Aberdeen. You can imagine how difficult it is for someone from the Shetland Isles, the Western Isles or even the areas that Jamie Stone and I represent to get to the central belt of Scotland on a regular basis. No matter how talented they are, a huge cost and, probably, two days' journey are involved. The petition is worthy of support, but the issue is much broader than ensuring that we have first-class facilities in the major centres—we need to think about how to spread such facilities so that people from the periphery can take advantage of them.

I will make a couple of suggestions. There is broad agreement on the approach that we should take. Bill Butler suggested that we put the issues that the petition raises to a number of local authorities—I propose that we seek responses from four or five authorities. I know that in central Scotland both East Dunbartonshire Council and Glasgow City Council have set aside resources to meet their new commitments; other authorities may have done the same. We should find out how choices were made and what the resource allocation is, so that folk can benefit from that.

Bill Butler also suggested that we write to sportscotland and the Government. When doing so, we should raise the issue of the regional facilities—not the national developments—that are already being developed or have been committed to. We should ask about the investment that is being made in training centres or academies for different sports throughout the country.

Another issue worth discussing with the Government is 2014 and its legacy, on which a consultation is under way. We will continue to debate in the chamber how that is funded. First, we need to consider what lottery funding we can get back. That option is excluded at the moment, because of other lottery funding distribution priorities. As one or two members will note, I picked my words carefully. Secondly, we must consider the commitment that is made in spending rounds. In the next couple of years, the Government will undertake the spending round for the subsequent three years. Decisions that are made then can impact on the quality of facilities and developments not just for 2012 and 2014 but in the long term.

We should have an informed debate on the legacy from 2014. How we fund that will be contested politically in some ways, but money needs to be found to enable people to reach that level of competition. I have discussed the issue with groups in my area that are involved in development work. If we do not put in place facilities between 2008 and 2010, we will not have the 20, 21 or 22-year-old youngsters whom we need to compete in 2012, 2014 and beyond.

I have suggested some steps that would be beneficial. Do other members have comments?

We must ensure that we do not forget the general purpose of the petition, which is to assist athletes in rural communities—by which the petitioner probably means distant communities. I make the point that not every facility is to be found even in a place as big as Aberdeen. Although we will no doubt talk to Highland Council, I suggest that it would be relevant for us to consider both Aberdeen City Council and Aberdeenshire Council—possibly even Angus Council—when asking local authorities how they deal with sports whose facilities are a long distance away.

Differences can exist even among island areas. Because of the historic issue of the oil fund, Shetland Islands Council can provide a range of sports facilities that are not available to people in the Western Isles or in the north and north-east of Scotland. I am sure that members who represent those areas have always looked enviously on that. Even within similar geographies, there are quite wide disparities that only local government—along with other partners, including national Government—can deal with. I agree that we should take that point on board. The petition makes the point about rural areas, but I think that we can broaden the debate.

I just want to underline the seriousness of the problem. For example, the Scottish youth cycling team must travel down to Birmingham or even to Holland to train.

In this of all weeks, that is ironic. I hope that the pathways into sport inquiry will comment on that issue and influence that debate.

The suggestions have been positive. Do members have any other comments?

We should not lose the specific point about the reimbursement of travelling expenses and other general costs for individuals. The petition suggests that only 17 per cent of travelling expenses are reimbursed. That seems a small amount, given that we want youngsters to be encouraged to travel to sports events.

Okay. We will take those points on board.

---

General Practitioner Dispensing Practices (PE1220)

PE1220, by Alan Kennedy, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Government to review all relevant legislation to ensure the continuance of general practitioner dispensing practices when commercial pharmaceutical practices apply to operate in the same area.

Do members have any comments on the petition?

Perhaps we should write to the Scottish Government to ask whether it is content that the current legislation on GP dispensing is appropriate and whether it has any plans to change it. We can ask what directions the Government gives to national health service boards on the issue. We could also write directly to a selection of health boards, including Fife NHS Board, to ask whether they are content with the current rules on GP dispensing and whether they think that the law needs updating to take account of the issues that the petition raises. That might be a start, convener.

The issue was contentious when the Office of Fair Trading first recommended that pharmacy services should be deregulated. The general feeling up here in Scotland was that such deregulation should not go ahead. I agree with what has been said, but I suggest that we should also seek the views of the British Medical Association and the Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain.

Those are helpful suggestions. It might also be helpful to seek the views of the Remote Practitioners Association of Scotland.

These issues are always a matter of judgment, but I know that in a recent case in a parliamentary constituency adjoining mine, the community was denied a new pharmacy because the existing pharmacies—which to me, as someone who knows the area well, seem a fair distance away—objected to the application. The local people who could have benefited from a pharmacy ended up with an off-sales, which seems kind of daft. For that reason, we need to be careful about some of the ways in which the system operates. However, I recognise Nanette Milne's point about the need to protect local pharmacies from large superstores that would diminish local choice and opportunity.

We will consider the points that have been raised by the petitioners.

We should also get in touch with Community Pharmacy Scotland.

I am happy to agree to that. I thank members for those suggestions.

---

BBC Alba (PE1222)

Our final new petition today is PE1222, by John Macleod, which calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Government, given its responsibilities to promote and support Gaelic culture, to make representations to the BBC trust to ensure that BBC Alba is made available on Freeview now rather than wait for the planned review in 2010.

Do members have any comments on the petition?

This is a controversial issue. Bòrd na Gàidhlig has campaigned for years to promote Gaelic in many shapes and forms, and not least to have a dedicated television channel established. That has now happened with the best efforts of all concerned, and it seems strange that in implementing the service the signal has been denied to the major part of the Gaelic-speaking world. Most of the Highlands cannot receive the service, which seems a retrograde step.

The BBC trust and others have suggested that that was done in the best interests of the channel, and over the next two years the trust will monitor the number of people who tune in, in order to judge whether to continue with it. Having cut off the major part of the watching audience, that seems a strange way to operate.

If no member has further comments, is there any suggestion of how to proceed with the petition?

In the first instance, we should ask the Scottish Government what representations it has made to the BBC on the provision of the channel on Freeview. As members are probably aware—we have certainly received enough publicity information about the digital switchover—unless people have good broadband internet access or cable or satellite television, they are currently unable to receive the channel. It is important that we promote the issue as widely as possible, and the Government should make immediate representations to the BBC on resolving the issue so that the wider community of Scotland, rather than just those who happen to have the correct equipment, can have access to BBC Alba.

I agree with John Farquhar Munro and John Wilson. If we write to the Scottish Government, we could also ask it to make representations to the BBC trust to ask for BBC Alba to be on Freeview earlier than the proposed timescale, which I believe is 2010-11. John Wilson and I have both suggested reasonable actions to take.

Okay, there is reasonable agreement. We will follow the suggestions on the petition.