Public Petitions Committee, 30 Mar 2009

Meeting date: Monday, March 30, 2009

Official Report 333KB pdf

---

New Petitions

---

G20 Summit (International Development) (PE1242)

We move to the next part of today's business. This part of the meeting is even more formal than the previous part and is for the petitioners, who will try to interrogate their issues with committee members. The questions are contained in the new petitions that have been submitted. I invite to the table the first group of students from Fraserburgh academy.

PE1242, by Mark Buchan, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government, as part of its international development policy, particularly in relation to Africa, to lobby the Prime Minister as leader of the G20 host nation to take urgent action to address extreme poverty and deprivation in Africa and to reduce the debt of African countries. Alongside young Mark Buchan today are fellow second-year students at Fraserburgh academy: I welcome Jenna McDonald and Fiona Henderson. You have a few minutes to explain your petition and then we will do our best to get you through. You will be absolutely fine. On you go, Mark. Or is Jenna McDonald taking control?

Before we start, on behalf of Fraserburgh academy I wish Mr Butler a happy birthday.

Thank you. You have revealed the secret that I was keeping from the committee members.

You have suitably embarrassed him, Jenna, so well done; that was a good start.

My petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to lobby Gordon Brown, as leader of the UK, the G20 host nation, to take urgent action to address extreme poverty in Africa and to further drop the debt.

I have been interested in the problems of poverty in Africa ever since I went to see U2 in 2005. I was inspired by Bono to try to do something about poverty in Africa but, as I was in primary school, there was no further action that I could take.

Recently, I went on to the ONE organisation's website and I saw that, nearly four years after Live 8 and the make poverty history campaign, little action has been taken. Africa is still in the same state of deprivation. After that, I wrote to the First Minister, Alex Salmond, to ask him to lobby Gordon Brown to invite an African representative to the G20. Last month, I was given the opportunity in my modern studies class to come up with a petition for the Public Petitions Committee's visit to the school. That is how my petition came about.

The number of people living in poverty in Africa is shockingly high. More than 1 billion people across the world have no access to clean water. There are huge death tolls from diseases such as HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria. Many of those deaths could be prevented with an injection that would cost less than 25p.

Child mortality is also a huge problem. Every year, nearly 10 million children die without seeing their fifth birthday.

One person dies due to extreme poverty in Africa every three seconds. From the time I began this presentation to the time I finish, 60 more people will have died due to extreme poverty. Every year, 18 million people die as a result of poverty. That is the equivalent of the combined populations of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland multiplied by two.

The Scottish Parliament needs to take action. People are suffering and we, in this modern economic country, need to do something more. We need to get behind the cause for Africa and show the Prime Minister that here in Scotland we support the cause to make poverty a thing of the past.

The Scottish Government's international development policy includes as an objective:

"to complement the work of the UK Government and other international development programmes",

but it says nothing specific on debt relief. The Scottish Government must show Gordon Brown that more support needs to be given. That would complement the work of the UK Government and that of development programmes in Africa.

Africa is calling for help. In this day and age, in the 21st century, no one should be subjected to poverty. Africa needs the support of the Scottish Government. Today, here in Fraserburgh, we are in a position where we can make a difference. The petition is not for me, but for Africa. Let us take the steps to make poverty history once and for all.

I will finish with a quote from Jayne and Edwin Wiseman of the Star Fish Project who started an orphanage in Kenya:

"Help us help Africa help itself."

That was fantastic. Well done.

I invite committee members to respond to the issues that have been raised.

Mark, that was an excellent and moving presentation. It is obvious that the petition stems from your own feelings from Live 8 and seeing Bono and U2 those few years ago. Things are still desperately bad in Africa, especially sub-Saharan Africa.

As well as working with Malawi, which is one of the poorest countries in Africa, should the Scottish Government make representations to the UK Government to release a specific amount of money for Africa, or should it press for more resources and training, as well as money, in order to help African citizens to help themselves? What do you think, Mark?

It is a case of money and resources. Africa needs things like education. Across the world, 2.6 million children are without primary education. Things like that need to be addressed as much as the debt. Without education, how will Africa's youth ever progress?

As you probably know, the current Scottish Government and the previous Scottish Executive, which was led by Jack McConnell, have used non-governmental organisations to send out folk with expertise in education and health to Africa. Obviously, you think that such assistance is necessary. Do you think that we also need to wipe out the debt of those countries as part of a three-pronged approach?

The debt is an important aspect. If their debt is wiped out, Governments can use their own money and resources to start to improve living conditions.

Mark, I think you did particularly well there. I do not think that you are nervous; if you are, you are certainly hiding it very well.

Everyone has heard the figures—that somebody dies in Africa every three seconds. However, it was a telling moment when you said that, from the start of your presentation to the end, 60 people would have died. That really got me. That kind of comment brings it home how important it is that the world does something.

I have worked in developing countries, not in Africa but in Sri Lanka, so I have a big interest in international development. I want to congratulate you on your petition; it is obvious that you have been working on these issues for a number of years.

I am sure that you will be making your own representations, but this committee would certainly be willing to write to the Scottish Government to ask for its views on debt relief and on getting rid of debt, and to ask what representations the Scottish Government is making to the UK Government. Any correspondence that we receive would be copied to you, so you would be involved in the process.

I am another MSP who has worked abroad: I was in Africa for two years, in Kenya. It was a wonderful experience, and it made me very aware of the need for education in Africa and of the tremendous opportunities that education can bring.

I am sure that you are aware of the figures on debt, which have been pulled together for committee members. Despite the fact that the world agreed that it would start to pay off Africa's debt, the debt has actually gone up. It was $225 billion in 2000, and it is $256 billion in 2009. I have been trying to do the sums in my head, but I am pretty certain that the money that the United States Government and the British Government have managed to pull together to bail out our banks could have paid off Africa's debt completely.

There is a very strong case for this committee to send your petition on to the Government as a chivvying note saying, "Come on, when are you going to make a dent in the enormous debt in Africa, which is not even reducing but is still building up? You'll have to work with other countries, because we're not going to do it on our own." Well done on your petition, Mark.

I, too, would like to say that Mark's presentation was excellent. It is a very important subject.

A concern that is often expressed, and one that I share, relates to the use of funding that goes to some of these countries, where the Governments might be a bit more corrupt than Governments in countries that we are more familiar with. If the committee is going to write to our Government, we should raise that concern. Do you have any thoughts on how we can ensure that funding goes to the right place, so that the people who benefit are the people who ought to benefit, rather than Government officials who are lining their own pockets?

It is true that a lot of the Governments are corrupt. People from the Star Fish Project in Kenya have told me that, when shoebox appeals go to Africa, the boxes are often kept to one side so that politicians can come and take what they like before everything else is sold. A lot of the contents do not get given to the poor.

If we give the money to politicians, it could be used in ways that do not benefit the poor. The best way to address the problem would be for the money to go to development. Targeting education, clean water, and the epidemics of HIV/AIDS and malaria would probably be the best way to ensure that the money does not go to waste but goes towards developing the country and taking people out of poverty.

So you are promoting self-help—encouraging people to help themselves. I agree with that. I have experience of such initiatives, not in Africa but in one of the countries of the former Soviet Union. People there have been helped, but previously we had found that goods that we sent ended up in the wrong hands. Your comments were very helpful, thank you.

My question is along the same lines as Nanette Milne's question about how we resolve the problem of poverty in Africa. As Mark said when he talked about the Star Fish Project, aid that goes to Africa is usually redistributed not by the organisations that are trying to alleviate poverty but by Government agencies that take the goods and moneys, which do not reach the poor. We could eradicate debt in Africa, but that will not resolve the issue of getting resources to those who are most in need. As Nanette Milne suggested, some countries with the worst poverty are in civil war. Alternatively, they are almost dictatorships and—to counter Bill Butler's earlier comment—it costs a lot of money to police those states. How do we get resources directly to those who live in poverty, so that we alleviate the problems that exist for many citizens of African countries?

As I said in my presentation, I wrote to Alex Salmond, the First Minister, to ask him to lobby Gordon Brown, as leader of the G20 host nation, and ask him to invite a representative of the African Union to the G20 summit. Gordon Brown has done that. We can build on that if the UK Government and Governments of other powerful countries co-operate with and work alongside the Governments of Africa to find ways in which aid can get through. They should also work to cut debt and give those countries the resources that they need, without the politicians taking more of those resources.

I am always keen on individuals doing what they can. In bringing the petition, Mark, you have definitely done a massive thing, given the publicity. Another way in which individuals can help is by promoting fair trade. Do you want to comment on that?

The fair trade movement is good, because farmers who in the past did not receive the right amount of money for what they did—and went further into poverty as a result—now get the money that they deserve. The movement is starting to make good progress and is really helping the cause of making poverty history.

That is something that everybody can contribute to, in schools and other organisations.

Is Fraserburgh academy doing any development or partnership work? If not, given that the rector is here, this might be a good opportunity to put pressure on him.

We had a diversity day, which was about winter festivals and Christmas in foreign countries from which we have pupils in the school. Fairness and equality have been well promoted in the school. The school has done good work and we need to continue to make progress.

Members from Glasgow will know that secondary schools in the area have worked well with identified projects. Part of the S6 development programme involves youngsters going out for a week, near the tail end of the academic year, when all the exams are finished. That is humbling, because they spend a year fundraising and then give their time to do something. The effect of identifying for young people their responsibilities as global citizens is remarkable—they are much better citizens and young people as a result. However, there can be cynicism. Your mates might say, "Why are you bothering about this, Mark? Everyone is selfish." How do you deal with it when your mates ask why you are bumping on about the issue, or say that you just heard about it on a U2 album or Bono said something about it? You are motivated and the issue matters to you, but what do you say to your pals when they are a bit more sceptical and think that it is okay to buy certain products?

It is not so much what I say, but what I show them. There is a photograph from the Sudan famine in 1994—you might have seen it, because it is shown fairly often when people talk about poverty. The picture is of a young child of one or two years of age, a kilometre from a United Nations food camp, crawling past a vulture that is waiting for the child to die. It is a disturbing image. When I saw that photo, I thought, "That is a waste of human life. Real people are suffering in Africa while I'm here in Scotland, which is economically powerful and part of the UK." I thought that I needed to do something and make a difference.

We found that even though the schools had 4,000 pupils and had very basic provision all the kids were smiling. Back in Scotland, teenagers are manically depressed about the weather, not having the latest fashion and whatever. We need to balance our priorities. Parliamentarians here and in the UK certainly feel a very strong responsibility to do as much as we can, if not more.

I agree. We have been born in a powerful country that has a strong Government and strong allies, and it is our responsibility to do something for the less well off countries in the third world.

When you say to your fellow students, "I'm not doing this just because I saw Bono on TV", and tell them about the stark reality, do the majority of them respond positively? Do they want to get involved?

They have responded positively. We were talking earlier about social networking sites; a group that I started on ending poverty in Africa has had a lot of support from my friends. They have also really supported me in my work on this petition and in what I have been trying to do to make a difference for Africa.

That is excellent.

Earlier my colleagues asked you about fair trade. Is there a fair trade campaign in the school? If not, would it be a good idea to make it a Fairtrade school?

It would be a good idea if the canteen and vending machines stocked fairly traded products. After all, we are already a health promoting school.

You should probably take that up. You seem to me to be a natural campaigner.

Is it the case that it does not matter who does what as long as Governments, not only at Holyrood and Westminster but across the world, co-operate? Indeed, is the key to this issue simply to make it clear that although the Scottish and UK Governments are playing a part, they have to play more of a part, and hopefully will?

All the Governments have to play a part. They all agree that poverty must be addressed, but they have to co-operate and focus on the issue. They have to say, "We're powerful countries. We have to make a difference for the poor of the world."

Following the point about corruption, I think that it is important not to confuse Parliaments with Governments. I attended, on behalf of the Scottish Parliament, a week-long conference in London organised by the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association on the subject of corruption in trade and aid. The parliamentarians at that conference were telling us that we must support democracy, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa, to allow them to look at what is happening and to control their Governments. I took that message back to the Scottish Parliament, and you have woken me up to the need to do a bit more to carry it forward. Perhaps the Scottish Parliament could do more to support parliamentarians, particularly in Malawi, in their bid to have more of a say in how money is spent.

I, too, congratulate Mark Buchan on bringing a very important petition to our attention. As you have obviously done a lot of research on this matter, I wonder whether you can give me a few clues to a question that I have.

You spoke about debt and trade. I do not know much about economics—these days, I am not sure who does—but people have told me that import tariffs, which put a tax on goods, make it difficult for Africa and other places to trade with more developed countries. I suspect that Americans are as bad as most people on that. Have you researched that? Is that relevant?

I return to the Star Fish Project, which was charged a lot of money for taking old clothes that people in the Fraserburgh area had donated to an orphanage in Nairobi. The project received a big donation from Tesco of summer clothes that had not been sold, and it was charged a considerable amount of money for taking the clothes into the country and giving them to the orphanage.

So customs duties are a problem in both directions.

We are in the final stage of dealing with the petition, which is discussing how we will proceed. You have made it clear that you want the committee to raise issues with the Scottish Government, that you want the Scottish Government to influence what it can within its powers and that you want the UK Government to deal with matters.

We will discuss how we will deal with the petition. I am open to suggestions from members.

Mark Buchan has made an incontestable case that is relevant now. Given what colleagues have said, I think that no one will disagree that we should write to ask the Scottish Government to write to ask the UK Government what it is doing about debt relief for African countries in general and in connection with the G20 summit.

Mark Buchan talked about co-operation. We should write to ask the First Minister and the Government what support they are offering Scotland-based organisations that are trying to help in countries that suffer extreme poverty. That would begin to address the thrust of the petition that Mark Buchan has submitted.

Do other members have positive suggestions?

It would be worth asking the Scottish Government what it does to assess how well money is being spent—how much of it reaches the people whom it is intended to reach, as Mark Buchan said.

I would like to know what exchange, twinning and educational programmes the Government is involved in with the countries that Mark Buchan's petition concerns.

We could ask not the Scottish Government but the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body how we are supporting parliamentarians in sub-Saharan Africa.

I return to world trade and import tariffs. If we are writing to ask the Government and Gordon Brown about what is being addressed at the G20 summit, that is one issue that needs to be addressed.

Can we ask how the fair trade Scotland programme aids countries?

Mark, you heard the earlier comments about the timescale. We will write to a series of decision makers and authorities about what they can do to address the issues that your petition raises. We will raise the matter directly with the Secretary of State for International Development, the Prime Minister, Scotland's First Minister and key Government departments.

As you have petitioned the Parliament, you will be kept up to date. Young Fergus Cochrane is your point of contact. If you want to find out more about the progress that your petition is making, you can e-mail him at the Scottish Parliament. You have his contact details, because you are a petitioner.

On the committee's behalf, I say that you are quite frightening, because you are better than any of us. That is a remarkable concession from me. That you, as a second-year pupil, are so confident in front of us is a remarkable testimony to your commitment. I am sure that, whatever you do in life—whether you want to be active in politics—

He has two women with him to support him.

They are there for the next petition, so we will see how the axe falls with the two able women beside Mark.

Although you are only in second year, Mark, you are confident, passionate and thoughtful. I was looking round the audience when you were speaking about what motivated you and I could sense the audience responding to you. That is a great skill to have. I hope that we can do something that helps you and your petition and that you can use that. Whatever you do in life or apply to do, the fact is that you have been in front of the Public Petitions Committee of the Parliament, which few young men or women will be able to say that they have achieved when applying to do something. You should never underestimate what you have done today. On behalf of the committee, I can say that we genuinely appreciate that and I hope that we can respond to some of the issues that you raised. Thanks very much for your time, Mark. If you want, you can stay for the next petition, with our permission, and avoid going back to class, if that is helpful. I trust that that is okay, Mr Morrison.

Yes.

---

NHS Services (Rural Areas) (PE1243)

For the next petition, we have another couple of young S2 students from Fraserburgh academy: Jenna McDonald and Fiona Henderson.

PE1243 calls on the Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to consider how we can ensure that funding of local hospitals in rural areas is increased to ensure that they are properly equipped and staffed so that they can treat more local people, thereby better meeting the needs of the local population and ending the need for patients to undertake long journeys for treatment. [Interruption.]

Fiona and I feel strongly that—

Sorry, Jenna, but I am waiting until that bell stops ringing. When I was teaching, I always had to do that.

I welcome both the students. I presume that you will make an opening statement, Jenna. I am sure that you will do well—good luck.

Fiona and I feel very strongly about our petition, which deals with the health of citizens and the impact of health care provision in rural areas such as Fraserburgh. At present, for any major health concerns, people in rural areas have to travel considerable distances for assessment and treatment. For example, people in the Fraserburgh area have to travel to Aberdeen. As the committee may be aware, perhaps from travelling here today, that is a considerable journey. That journey may use valuable time for one's medical case, which is why we wish extra funding for local hospitals so that they are properly equipped for any health issue that they may face.

We asked the members of our modern studies class whether anyone had had personal dealings with Fraserburgh hospital that ended in a journey to Aberdeen royal infirmary, which takes at least 50 minutes. Unfortunately, many hands were raised. On a personal note, my sister Charlene, who was eight years old at the time, was taken to our local hospital in Fraserburgh complaining of horrendous stomach pains. After a three-hour wait in hospital, a doctor finally arrived and immediately had to send for an ambulance to take her to Aberdeen sick children's hospital because, in that three-hour period, her appendix had ruptured. If her admission in Aberdeen had been delayed any longer through travel, the situation might have been fatal.

What if Fraserburgh hospital had the medical facilities and staff to diagnose and treat such medical complaints so that there would not be a risk to life? What if Fraserburgh hospital and others like it had the medical facilities and staff to carry out diagnoses and do routine and emergency operations so that there would be no risk to life from journeys and so that action could be taken immediately for the benefit of the patient?

We can give other illustrations. For example, a classmate's grandfather recently suffered sudden back pains. After phoning NHS 24, he was advised to go to Fraserburgh hospital. He could not receive an X-ray there because that service runs only on certain days, so he was given the choice of going to Peterhead or Turiff for treatment. What if there was not enough time to travel to those places? If Fraserburgh hospital had had the diagnostic equipment to treat that local citizen at the time—right then—valuable time would not have been lost.

Let us prevent such stories. Please ensure that local funding of local hospitals in rural areas is increased so that the hospitals are properly equipped and staffed, and local people's needs are better met so that they do not have to undertake long journeys for diagnosis and treatment. We all deserve quick and effective medical attention when it is needed. Help answer the question: what if?

Thanks very much, Jenna. Fiona, do you want to add anything, or are you happy to come in during the questions?

That is fine.

That was very well done, Jenna. You have raised a very important issue that concerns people in all rural areas. I was involved in the maternity service issue, which affected Fraserburgh and Aboyne—I was probably more involved in the Aboyne side of the situation, along with my colleague, Mike Rumbles, who is the constituency member for that area and is with us today.

One of the important issues that concern the health boards, which are responsible for delivering health care, is the cost of having the proper equipment and staff in every remote hospital and setting. I do not know whether you know about telehealth, but it is like videoconferencing. With the appropriate up-to-date equipment, I could sit in Aberdeen and talk to you just as we are talking now. The way in which the system works means that people such as your sister could go to the hospital in Fraserburgh and get in direct contact with one of Aberdeen's medical specialists much more quickly than they would be able to if they had to travel to Aberdeen. That would mean that the treatment would be delivered a lot more quickly because the diagnosis could be made earlier.

That might not be as ideal as having all the equipment to deal with the situation in Fraserburgh, but I think it would help quite a lot. I would be interested to hear your views on the development of telehealth, which is a growing part of the health service.

Jenna, you mentioned that you had conducted a poll of fellow pupils. What kind of things did people think it would be reasonable to expect to be able to access at their local community hospital rather than at a general hospital further away?

It would be good if something could be done about the X-ray machines. At the moment, they run only on certain days. If someone's life is in danger when the machines are switched off, they have to travel down to Aberdeen.

Teenagers are, by nature, boisterous and are prone to receiving sporting injuries, for example. What did people say about the need to get that sort of injury treated locally?

It would be helpful to have some way of treating such injuries in Fraserburgh. Peterhead has telemedicine, so why should we not have it?

You have told us that you have heard from your fellow pupils that Fraserburgh should at least have X-ray machines and an accident and emergency unit, certainly for minor injuries. Do you think that it would be possible to have every medical facility located here in Fraserburgh, or do you think that certain things have to be located a little bit further away? Do you think that it would be practical to have everything here?

It would be helpful to have some stuff, even if we cannot have everything. We can always go to Peterhead or Aberdeen, but it would stop us having to go on long journeys if we could have the few main things that we need, such as X-ray machines that are always operational.

Our petition is aimed at ending the stories that you hear about Fraserburgh not having enough equipment by making a start on expanding the amount of equipment that is available here.

You want to begin to make things better.

Aye.

It is accepted that ambulance response times are measured and that everyone across Scotland has a right to expect an ambulance to arrive within a certain time, depending on the area. You would probably agree that we should be thinking of establishing some sort of right in rural communities to a hospital facility that delivers a range of treatments and diagnoses within a certain journey time from that area. Would that be useful?

Yes.

As a Glasgow MSP, it is useful for me to hear what you have had to say today. You have spoken passionately and well. Obviously, Jenna, the experience that you went through with your little sister is very important to you.

In cities, it can occasionally take 50 minutes to reach the hospital, if you are trying to get there during rush hour or when there is a big football match on. However, sometimes, MSPs who represent urban areas need to be reminded that people who are in a geographical situation such as yours face particular difficulties. I take seriously my role as a Glasgow MSP, but we are part of the wider Scottish Parliament, which is supposed to take the whole of Scotland into account.

John Farquhar Munro's constituency is a rural constituency, like the area that we are in today. Do you have something to say on the matter, John?

As the convener says, I live in an extremely rural area on the west coast of Scotland. Beautiful though it is, it has problems. I was interested in your suggestions about hospital treatment. Do you agree that it would probably be prohibitively expensive to provide the necessary equipment in every rural community hospital?

Yes, but it would be a massive achievement just to make a start in every rural hospital. Peterhead has telemedicine, and Fraserburgh should have the same opportunity to get the more modern technology and equipment. We just want to help rural hospitals and stop people having to make really long journeys, which could cost someone's life—I am thinking about the three-hour wait that my sister had to go through, followed by the journey to Aberdeen. That sort of thing is starting to affect people.

What sort of distance would you accept as reasonable? Do you think that Aberdeen is a long way away?

Aberdeen has the equipment to treat certain medical issues. However, a 50-minute journey might cost someone their life or have an effect on their future.

The medical profession regularly tells us that, if you want specialist treatment in a hurry, there are particular places in the country that are established as the places to go for that treatment. For instance, if someone needs major heart surgery, they will not go to Peterhead, Fraserburgh or Elgin; they will be sent to one of the recognised centres of excellence for those operations. I take it that you have no objection to that.

We are aware that Aberdeen would carry out the major procedures. Like I said, though, Peterhead has been given a telemedicine facility, but Fraserburgh has not, and the surrounding areas are affected by the fact that Fraserburgh has not been given at least a start in access to modern technology and equipment. You never hear about Fraserburgh getting any further in modern medicine technology.

I am sure that, like me, members of the committee will be quite happy to support your petition, as long as you accept that the 60-odd miles to Aberdeen is not a long distance.

He is saying that because he drives around Skye regularly.

To go back to your original "what if?" question, it strikes me that what you are really asking for is equality. We are always keen to say that we should treat everybody equally, but, as John Farquhar Munro said, there are huge difficulties with funding. It is right that people have equal access to the national health service, and it would help if you had telemedicine here in Fraserburgh. Would that, in your view, be a beginning at least?

Yes.

Yes.

You are doing well so far. You have been asked some pretty difficult questions—even health board officials sometimes do not want to, and sometimes cannot, answer difficult questions.

We now want to pull everything together. You are saying that you want to know how decisions are made about allocating resources, and why broadly equivalent areas seem to get different resources. That issue concerns all elected members: no matter which areas we cover, we wonder why one area has something and another area does not, and how certain decisions are made. You want us to explore that for you—you have said a couple of times that another part of the region has got something that your part has not, and that you think that the areas are broadly similar in terms of need and so on.

We were trying to make the point in our questions that certain acute services can only be provided by specialists. The reality is that a person with a serious head injury will be transferred to the Southern general in Glasgow for treatment, given the nature of the injury. However, if other injuries can be dealt with locally, we should try to roll out those services a bit more effectively.

We now get to the bit where we decide what to do with the petition. I am happy to hear members' suggestions.

I thank Jenna McDonald for raising the issue. Those of us who live in Aberdeen, which is a long way from the rest of Scotland, know that some people tend to forget what it is like to live in places such as Fraserburgh.

We ought to write to Grampian NHS Board and ask for its view on the quality of the distribution of services in its region. We know that it will say that there is not the volume of work to sustain a general hospital north of Aberdeen, and certainly not in Fraserburgh, but I think that we and the petitioners know that there is. However, we can legitimately ask the board what research it has carried out and what data it has in relation to equality in the provision of services throughout the rural parts of Aberdeenshire and Moray.

I congratulate both Jenna McDonald and Fiona Henderson as petitioners who have made a very reasonable request: that health boards—as my colleague Nigel Don has mentioned—and the Scottish Government examine the way in which resources such as money, staff and equipment are distributed.

It might be a good idea to write not only to the local health board but to the Scottish Government to ask whether the Government plans to allocate more resources—or even a degree of extra resource—so that more equipment and more staff can be located where that would be appropriate: in Fraserburgh. That will, I hope, get the Government thinking—as I know it is already—about the way in which it provides for people who live in rural areas, some of which are very isolated.

I will follow up on telehealth or e-health. In the Scottish Parliament, quite a lot of pressure has been put on the Government recently to expand the provision of telehealth throughout the country. It would be interesting to find out from the Government and health boards—specifically Grampian, which pioneered telehealth in the first place, but perhaps others—how they see that developing and whether it will be possible to bring in other communities such as Fraserburgh. The petitioners say that Peterhead already has telehealth, but how feasible would it be to extend that to other, slightly smaller communities in the same broad area?

Are there any other suggestions about how we wish to encourage the delivery of a more effective local service? That is central to what Jenna McDonald and Fiona Henderson are asking for.

This general point has probably been made already, but it is important. During previous committee investigations, we have found that the quality of information available to us was often not what we wanted. Therefore, it is very important that we press the Government on how it monitors and gathers information on the roll-out of new services and on how we will be able to tell whether they are as successful and effective as everybody hopes that they will be.

Both Fiona Henderson and, in particular, Jenna McDonald, when she spoke about her sister, brought up journey times and how time is an important element if we want to treat people effectively and safely. We should ask the Scottish Government and the NHS board about what they are doing to ensure that journey times are as brief as possible so that people can access any major surgery that might be needed.

After that series of suggestions, John Wilson will offer a concluding one.

Although we agreed to write to Grampian NHS Board, it would also be useful to write to other rural health boards, such as Highland NHS Board and Borders NHS Board, to find out what exactly is happening in those areas and whether there are common problems throughout rural health service provision in Scotland. We could then focus the minds of the Government and health boards on tackling the issues.

With the convener's permission, I suggest that we write to other rural health boards to ask for their views, especially on e-networking and e-medicine. We could also ask about any new technologies that are coming online that would assist rural hospitals to deliver services—for example, by linking Fraserburgh with Aberdeen. Other issues in other areas might come through the pipeline, which could help us to deliver in a better way the care that is required in a rural setting.

We will pursue on behalf of Jenna McDonald and Fiona Henderson the matters in their petition. As I said to Mark Buchan earlier, we will respond to you directly. I echo comments by committee members and thank you for submitting the petition. I hope that we can make progress on the issues. I invite members of the audience to show their appreciation of these youngsters' bravery and commitment with a round of applause. [Applause.] With that ringing in your ears, you are free to leave.

---

A90/A937 (Safety Improvements) (PE1236)

We move on swiftly to consider PE1236 and comments by a not-so-young person—Mike Rumbles. I am sorry, but as you do not get a round of applause in your own household, you will get none here.

Several parliamentarians have expressed an interest in the petition, including Mike Rumbles and Richard Baker, who is here to speak to this petition as well as others. I see that Lewis Macdonald and Stewart Stevenson, who is the local constituency member, are present for other items on the agenda.

PE1236, by Jill Campbell, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to improve safety measures on the A90 by constructing a grade-separated junction where the A937 crosses the A90 at Laurencekirk.

I invite Mike Rumbles to say a few words.

Thank you, convener, for your kind invitation; Jill Campbell cannot be here today.

I start by quoting from the Scottish Parliament information centre briefing, which says that on 2 March 2005, the previous convener of the Public Petitions Committee closed consideration of the petition by saying:

"I think that there is a longer-term issue, and Mike Rumbles will have to keep an eye on it. If the petitioners want to get back to the committee, we will be more than happy to hear from them."—[Official Report, Public Petitions Committee, 2 March 2005; c 1558.]

I am keeping more than an eye on the issue; I am keeping both eyes firmly fixed on the matter.

Jill Campbell has been involved with the campaign for well over five years. The reason why her petition has returned to the committee and why I am here today is that there is a feeling among local campaigners in Laurencekirk that the Government has made an error based on a misunderstanding and on not having the correct information in front of it.

I will explain the situation. In 2005, when the safety measures went in, including the 50mph speed limit, the new road surface and the speed cameras, the previous minister described those as short-term measures, similar to the measures that were put in place at Forfar, where the road goes on to a grade-separated junction. The Laurencekirk community is the only one of its size between the cities of Dundee and Aberdeen that does not have a grade-separated junction. The petition is entirely about saving lives. There were a number of deaths before the safety measures were introduced in 2005.

We requested meetings with the Minister for Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change in order to get the Laurencekirk grade-separated junction into the strategic transport projects review, which he was writing, and to ensure that he had all the information on board. In his letter of 9 October, which I am happy to give to the committee, the minister said:

"Following the introduction of the safety measures, there have been two slight injury accidents reported."

He went on to say:

"In the circumstances, I do not feel that a meeting about this matter would be useful."

The minister would not even meet Jill Campbell or me, as the constituency member. I wanted to meet the minister so that, when he produced the strategic transport projects review, he would have all the information. It seemed bizarre to meet me after the STPR was published, but that is what he agreed to do.

In the meantime, following a freedom of information request, Jill Campbell obtained a whole set of statistics from Grampian Police, who said that, in fact, the Scottish Government did not have the correct information. According to Grampian Police, between 2005, when the safety measures were introduced, and 2008, the number of casualties at the location was 21, six of which were serious and 15 of which were slight. There were 35 collisions. By the grace of God, nobody has been killed at Laurencekirk since the 2005 safety measures were put in place.

We had a meeting with the minister, at which all of that was raised. I have been absolutely fair to him. He was quite clear when he told Jill Campbell and me that the Laurencekirk junction was not his priority, and that other areas had greater priority. When we pressed him to tell us what areas had greater priority than the Laurencekirk junction, he refused to tell us. He said that it was impossible to give us that information.

We feel that there is a catch-22 situation at Laurencekirk. This is a cross-party issue, not a party-political issue, and involves all the regional members, some of whom are on this committee. We are interested only in ensuring that the Government, which makes the decision, had and has the information before it. We tried to influence the decision, which, in our view, the Government made without the right information. How do we put right that wrong decision? That is what Jill Campbell is concerned about. I support her, and I am sure that the regional members support her, too. The question that the petitioner is asking the committee to consider is how we put right that wrong decision.

I back the case that Mike Rumbles has made, on which there is cross-party concern. It is important to get clarity from the Scottish Government on a number of issues. First, on the number of injuries—including serious injuries—that have been sustained because of the lack of a grade-separated junction, why is there a disparity between the figures that the community activists, including Jill Campbell, have found and what the minister stated in his reply to Mike Rumbles?

Secondly, in reviewing the situation, where will the junction go on the list of transport priorities under the strategic transport projects review? Now that it has access to the information, which should have been there from the beginning, will the Scottish Government revise how much priority is given to the project under the terms of the strategic transport projects review?

Thank you. I invite questions from members of the committee.

A few questions occur to me. It would be interesting to know how many drivers have been prosecuted for speeding on that stretch of road, because that might help us to understand whether irrational behaviour is a contributory factor in accidents.

I raised the issue with the procurator fiscal's office. There is anecdotal evidence that sheriffs are convicting more people for speeding on the road, but we cannot get the statistics, because they are confidential and will not be released. We have tried to get all the available information, but we have got only the accident figures from Grampian Police, which give a picture that is different from what the Scottish Government says.

It seems bizarre that you cannot get hold of the statistics. Will you pursue the matter with the Scottish freedom of information commissioner?

The Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 does not apply; there are exceptions in the act that ensure that information about prosecutions is not divulged by the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service. From information that I have had from sheriffs—I will not go into detail—I can tell you anecdotally that more people are being convicted for speeding around Laurencekirk, despite the short-term safety measures that have been put in place.

Even if the Government decided to start talking about a grade-separated junction, it would take a long time for the project to be included in a budget and for the junction to become a reality. What more needs to be done to make that stretch of road safer?

The safest approach would be to have a grade-separated junction. The problem for us, for Jill Campbell the petitioner and for local people is that because a grade-separated junction at Laurencekirk is not in the current strategic transport projects review, the project cannot get into the next review until 2022, so the time lag that you talked about will kick in only then.

Even if a decision were made soon, it would take several years to build a grade-separated junction. We know that a new junction cannot be built overnight; we are realistic about that. By the grace of God there have been no deaths yet, but I am certain that there will be deaths if action is not taken soon.

We are going round the loop for at least the second time. My concern is that the right information should be in the public domain and that decisions made by the minister—who is listening to the meeting—should be transparent and clear, so that we can end the debate about the statistics. We all know that politicians have to prioritise, but we should at least ensure that we have the right information.

As I understand it, the issue is the number of accidents at the junction to the south of Laurencekirk. However, perhaps we should also be concerned about the number of accidents at the junctions to the east and north of Laurencekirk. If a flyover was built at the south junction—that is probably where it would be built—and was used effectively, the other two junctions could be closed up, or people could at least be prevented from crossing the carriageway at those points. Am I right in thinking that part of the issue about statistics is the length of road over which they are collected?

Nigel Don has hit the nail on the head. That is what the problem is all about. The campaigners are interested in having a grade-separated junction at the main junction at the southern end of Laurencekirk. That is one of three junctions; the other two are further round the bypass. The issue is the number of serious accidents and near fatalities when people try to get in and out of Laurencekirk.

I do not want to get into a debate about which junction should be grade separated. The point is that if there was a single grade-separated junction, there would be no more accidents at the other junctions, because no one would try to cross the A90 there. Many members will have driven up the A90 to get here and will realise the danger of crossing the road. I try never to cross the A90 other than at a grade-separated junction. I can use such junctions at Newtonhill, Portlethen, Stonehaven and Forfar; I cannot do so at Laurencekirk. People will die unless that mistake is put right.

Thank you for clarifying the issue. It will help if we can be clear about the statistics for that stretch of road. We will have to be slightly careful, because I expect that the road out of Laurencekirk to the north would continue to be used as a feeder to the northbound A90.

People can use both the central and the northern junctions, as long as they do not cross the road.

I guess that we would want to close off the middle junction, because it is of no value.

You talked about a meeting that you had with the Minister for Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change on 25 February. Did the minister make no concession on the statistics that you provided? Did he agree to look at them again? You said that he responded to you and others by saying that other areas had greater priority. Did he provide a rationale for that approach?

Those are very good questions. I do not want to put words in the minister's mouth, because I am speaking on the public record about a private meeting. However, I am sure that he would not disagree when I say that, at the meeting, he accepted that there was no disagreement about the statistics. Jill Campbell and I were dumbfounded by that, because there was an obvious disagreement between the statistics that he mentioned in his letter to us and the freedom of information statistics that Jill obtained from Grampian Police. I asked whether we could see the minister's statistics, but they are confidential to the Government and will not be published. It is another catch-22 situation. How can we ensure that we are talking about the same statistics if we do not have the necessary information?

Bill Butler's question about priorities hit the nail on the head. I can understand any minister telling Jill Campbell, the campaigners and me that we have a good point and that everyone would like to see a grade-separated junction at Laurencekirk. I am sure that if the Minister for Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change had pots of money, he could build one tomorrow, but he does not and he must make decisions on priorities—we all understand that. However, he would not tell us what his priorities were, so that other people, such as the campaigners, could make judgments on the matter.

This an ideal public petition, because my constituents need to be able to make judgments. They should not have to take a minister's word for it when he tells them that a project is not on his list of priorities. I asked the minister where the project appears on that list, but he would not or could not tell us. The Public Petitions Committee could get that information out of him.

I want to ensure that I have got the facts right. The A90 Dundee to Stonehaven junction strategy that appeared in August last year recommended that a feasibility study be carried out to investigate the possibility of converting one of the Laurencekirk junctions into a grade-separated junction, as well as other options. Is that study on-going? Have you received any indication of when you may hear the result?

The minister has told us only that a camera will be installed at the junctions to check drivers' behaviour this month and in April. He reiterated the point at our meeting of 25 February, but he has given no commitment to do anything with that fact-finding mission. We talked about irresponsible driver behaviour at the junctions—at least that is being investigated—but we do not know what will become of that information.

What concerns us all is the time that it will take even for a decision to be made about whether a grade-separated junction should be installed. The minister does not disagree that such a junction is needed at Laurencekirk; the disagreement seems to be about whether the project is worthy compared with other priorities. We do not know what those priorities are, but I have examined the statistics. I repeat that our aim is to save lives. We need a commitment to open government that will allow all of us to look at all of the figures and to be assured that the minister has made the right decision. If he is wrong and a mistake has been made, he should be big enough to rectify that.

Do members have any other questions? We have had a chance to consider the issues previously, but do members have any points on which they want to follow through?

The petition mentions the improvements that took place in 2005. Has the situation improved since then, or have the same sorts of accidents occurred?

That is the nub of the matter. When the 50mph zone, the speed cameras and the resurfacing of the road were first provided as so-called temporary measures, the idea was that the junction would later become a grade-separated junction like the one at Forfar. However, we have now waited four years for that and drivers have got used to the speed limit. As I said earlier, I am hearing evidence locally—albeit anecdotal evidence—that sheriffs are prosecuting more people for speeding in the area, so people are either forgetting the new speed limit or they are getting used to it. Those safety measures were intended to be temporary, but they seem to be somewhat permanent. They ain't gonna work.

I keep coming back to this point—it is a good point on which to finish—that the petition is about only one thing: it is about saving lives. We need to ensure that we use our limited resources to do that effectively.

I am conscious that we need to consider other petitions and we need a five-minute comfort break. Do we have any other immediate questions, or can we perhaps summarise what we will do next with the petition?

I think that we should correspond with Transport Scotland to ask what the situation is with the statistics for the Laurencekirk junction. We should seek an explanation from the minister—or from Transport Scotland on his behalf—on exactly what the Government's priorities are and how they were arrived at. We need to get those facts into the public domain if possible and then continue from there.

We should get back in touch with the Scottish Government, Grampian Police, Aberdeenshire Council and Transport Scotland to establish whether they all use the same statistics—whatever those statistics might be and whatever conclusions they might draw from them. If we have different numbers sloshing around, we have no chance of having a sensible discussion. If everyone uses the same numbers and the response from the Government or Transport Scotland is based on those numbers, people at least have a defensible position. Most of the discussion will then be about policy, which is what we should be talking about.

We also need to know the timeframe for the feasibility study.

We have a series of initiatives to take forward, so the petition will remain open while we continue to explore those issues with the minister and the responsible agencies.

Mike Rumbles might want to express a view on the other petitions that we will consider later, but I thank him at this point for his contribution so far.

Meeting suspended.

On resuming—