General Questions
Strathclyde Partnership for Transport
To ask the Scottish Government whether recently reported concerns regarding the use of public funds by members of Strathclyde partnership for transport had previously been brought to the attention of Audit Scotland. (S3O-9663)
Audit Scotland is a statutory body that is independent of the Scottish Government, and which provides services to the Auditor General for Scotland and the Accounts Commission. The commission is responsible for appointing the external auditors of local authorities in Scotland, including Strathclyde partnership for transport. Such questions should be addressed directly to the commission or to Audit Scotland.
Will the minister seek Audit Scotland’s views on extending its investigation into the governance arrangements of SPT, with a view to achieving party-political parity, given the recent revelations that Labour councillors replaced Labour councillors as chair and vice-chair of SPT without the board’s meeting to discuss the matter?
As we know, Councillor Graeme Hendry has been pursuing that subject diligently. I congratulate him on his efforts. It is clear from what has emerged that a greater sense of balance in the running of SPT would likely benefit all political parties and people in Strathclyde. However, at the end of the day, it is a matter for the authorities that make up SPT and not for ministerial direction. We will watch with interest the decisions that are made about the future leadership of SPT.
A82 and A83 (Improvements)
To ask the Scottish Executive what plans it has to improve the A82 and A83. (S3O-9571)
We are continuing to improve and maintain both the A82 and the A83. On the A83, we plan to carry out measures to improve safety on the route and undertake structural maintenance works to improve the condition of the road, while on the A82, we are taking forward schemes including major projects at Crianlarich and Pulpit Rock.
In the longer term, the strategic transport projects review has recommended an upgrade of the A82 route to reduce accident severity and cut journey times. That review also recommended a series of route-management initiatives for the A83 to maintain the physical condition and safety standards of the route.
The minister has not given time schedules for that work. On the A82, will the minister give a firm and detailed time commitment on the road widening, climbing lanes and junction improvements that are planned for between Tarbet and Fort William?
On the A83, what guarantees can the minister give that the current work that is being undertaken at the Rest and be thankful will prevent a repeat of the closures of that key trunk artery road, which proved to be so damaging to the Argyll economy? Specifically, what action will he take to remedy the appalling physical condition of stretches of the A83 near Tarbet that my constituents feel make it currently very dangerous to drive on?
Jamie McGrigor has asked a complex set of questions, so I will write to him to ensure that I address fully all his points. However, I record at this stage that in relation to the work on the A82 to the south of Fort William, we held a public information exercise to discuss the public effects of the works. It has been agreed that the works will commence after Easter on 11 April and will last for 14 nights. The works will finish before the Scottish six days trial world championships motorcycle event.
In relation to the Rest and be thankful, we intend to have in place by the end of spring 2010 a £750,000 permanent solution to the problem at that part of the hill. The improvement scheme will involve, among other things, a new culvert under the road, strengthening of the embankment below the road and installation of new drainage above and below the road. I will answer the member’s questions more fully when I write to him.
The Inverness bypass stakeholder group that was set up by the minister and Highland Council is considering connecting the A96 and the A9 to the A82. Will the minister outline the timetable to which the group is working and the contribution that the Government might be able to make to the cost of the project?
We now have a very effective partnership with Highland Council. There have been a substantial number of meetings involving officials. I had a meeting by audioconference with Dr Michael Foxley in recent weeks—we were very much of one mind. Although responsibility for the A82 to A9 connection lies with the council and responsibility for the A9 and A96 connection lies with the Government, we are working together to ensure that there are economies of scale and that the designs fit each other.
It is clear that some of the benefits of the council’s work will accrue to the trunk-road network. At the appropriate time, we will discuss the appropriate respective responsibilities for financing that part of the road improvements.
My next meeting with Dr Foxley is planned for May. We are making the progress that we hoped we would make and we are delivering for the people of Inverness and the surrounding areas in a way that has not happened in the past.
Major Road Projects
To ask the Scottish Executive what legal protection is available to local residents during major road projects. (S3O-9584)
There are various forms of legal protection available to cover local residents dependent on the particular circumstances.
Does the minister agree that residents should not expect to be kept up until 3 o’clock or 4 o’clock in the morning by noisy road works? What action will he take to ensure that contractors comply with permits that are issued by local authorities?
Does the minister also agree that traffic management on the A80 is not working for residents or road users? I have written to him on those important matters, but will he agree to meet me as a matter of urgency to discuss them?
I am always happy to meet members to discuss such matters, which affect constituents. If Cathie Craigie contacts my office, I will of course ensure that I meet her.
We are in the process of constructing noise barriers and bunds. We have not completed that process, but we have seen significant improvement through the work that has been undertaken so far.
On complaints about night-time working, I accept that there appear to have been such activities. For the moment, the work on the sites of greatest concern has moved elsewhere. The local authority has not yet taken enforcement action—it is for it to do so. However, we have ensured that we have in place a proper process by which we can contact contractors out of hours. Some of the difficulties that might have arisen in the past when complaints have been made have been around establishing, in a timely fashion, the facts of the matter and intervening immediately, as appropriate. I hope that that gives immediate comfort to the member, although I am happy to meet and to discuss the matter further.
What responsibilities do contractors for road projects, such as HMC at the A80, have to communicate local residents’ rights to them, including their legal protection rights?
That is not a direct obligation on contractors. In working up the details of the project, Transport Scotland has sought to engage with the local communities to the extent that it can. Part of that process certainly should have been to answer questions on legal rights. Of course, it would not really be for the construction company or Transport Scotland directly to provide legal advice—we are not really in a position to do that. However, if there are shortcomings and members wish to put further matters to me, I will of course respond in the usual way.
We have taken 10 minutes to cover three questions, to which there have been only two supplementaries. I would appreciate it if both questions and answers were a little shorter—if questions are a little shorter, it follows that the answers will be, too.
Economic Crisis (European Funding)
To ask the Scottish Executive what additional European funding Scotland has received since the start of the recent economic crisis. (S3O-9621)
Additional funding has been allocated to Scotland from the European economic recovery package. That includes €40 million for a facility near Aberdeen for testing offshore wind energy technology, €74 million for the Shetland North Sea grid node to connect offshore renewable energy projects to the proposed subsea cable between the Shetlands and the mainland, and €2.9 million for the Scotland rural development programme, which will help to fund additional broadband activities.
Given the recognition of the competitiveness strategy of smaller businesses in the South of Scotland, does the minister agree that joint European resources for micro to medium enterprises—JEREMIE—funding should now be brought into Scotland, as has happened in Wales, which would provide a vital line for small businesses? What efforts—other than simply writing a letter to Her Majesty’s Treasury back in December—are taking place between the Scottish Government, Westminster and the European Investment Bank? Is there a timetable for that or has the Government given up on that £69.5 million opportunity for our businesses?
This Government has certainly not given up, but the Scottish Enterprise board recommended that Scotland should not proceed with the loan application to the European Investment Bank and the establishment of a JEREMIE fund at this time because of significant issues including substantial cost implications, management operating costs, complexity and governance arrangements. We are looking to see what alternative European funding exists and what other potential partnering could be done. Already, Scotland is doing more than Wales and the north-east of England.
Question 5 has been withdrawn.
A92 Road Orders (Public Local Inquiry)
To ask the Scottish Executive when it received the report of the public local inquiry on the proposed A92 road orders in relation to the A92 east of Newport-on-Tay in Fife, and when it expects to announce its decision. (S3O-9629)
The report of the PLI into the proposals for the A92 east of Newport-on-Tay in Fife was received on 28 July. As I indicated to Mr Smith in a written parliamentary answer, the matter is still under very active consideration and I will announce my decision as soon as possible.
The target date for the decision, according to the website of the directorate for planning and environmental appeals, was last August. We are now in February—some seven months since the Government received the report. Does the minister really think that that is acceptable?
There have been a number of accidents at that location since the inquiry report, including one last week which, fortunately, did not result in any serious injuries. Local people think that speeding is the main concern on the road: speeding is clearly not a problem within the department.
The member will be aware that some of the safety response related to closing central reservation gaps. We have tried, through the promotion of a traffic regulation order, to make the trunk road safer for all users, but that has prompted a significant number of objections. We have to respect the rights of objectors, but we are on the brink of making an appropriate decision.
The minister will be aware that I have raised other concerns with him about the A92, particularly in relation to the section at the Balfarg junction in Glenrothes and the upgrading of the Parbroath junction. Will he comment on those in relation to the proposed A92 road orders?
I really do not think that I have anything more to add to what I have said previously on the matter. I indicated that I understood the issues at both the junctions. We are continuing actively to consider them.
Built Heritage
To ask the Scottish Executive what importance it attaches to Scotland’s built heritage. (S3O-9638)
The Scottish Government shares with all the people of Scotland a pride in our nation’s built heritage. It inspires us and gives us our sense of place.
Our built heritage makes an important contribution to the Scottish Government’s purpose of increasing sustainable economic growth.
The Scottish Government demonstrates its commitment to the built heritage by investing more than £12 million a year in direct support through grants to owners and local communities, and in the work that Historic Scotland does to grow our traditional skills base.
The minister will be aware of many historical monuments and buildings across the South of Scotland, including the world heritage centre at New Lanark. Does she agree that Scotland’s world heritage sites are not only historically important but culturally and educationally important as they provide useful places of learning about Scotland’s past? Will she accept my invitation to visit New Lanark to see for herself the impressive work that is carried out by the dedicated team of educationists and conservationists?
I acknowledge Aileen Campbell’s passion for New Lanark and I am delighted to accept her invitation to visit it and to see its contribution as a world heritage site through its historical significance and through education. I am sure that members across the chamber look forward to inviting me to their areas so that I can see and benefit from understanding the passion and commitment to our built environment.
Since the minister asked, will she consider the Abbotsford project in my constituency, which has not only national but international recognition? The local authority and the Abbotsford Trust have raised more than £6.5 million towards an exciting £10 million scheme for the area, which the minister has agreed to meet me to discuss, following positive moves from her predecessor. Will she ensure that the scheme suffers no funding gap that could put it at risk? Given her enthusiastic support for other areas, will she ensure that the Abbotsford project is also a success?
Jeremy Purvis has previously asked me to visit Abbotsford, when I said that I would be delighted to do so. I put on record the Government’s recognition of the fabulous fundraising effort to support Abbotsford, and I look forward to learning more about the project and to addressing some of the serious issues that he raises about where the project will go from here.
My constituency has so many listed buildings—more than anywhere else in Scotland—that I could not possibly invite the minister to them all. I acknowledge Historic Scotland’s excellent work, but does the minister share my concern about the inflexibility that has often been shown when environmentally friendly adaptations—particularly the installation of double glazing—are made? I am dealing with an example of that, in which the minister obviously cannot become involved, but will she urge Historic Scotland to be more in tune with her Government’s laudable climate change objectives?
Historic Scotland has made a significant effort in recent times to become more flexible in order to address some of the legitimate concerns that Malcolm Chisholm raises. The agency has a keen interest in seeing what it can do to contribute to the climate change agenda. I hope that it will announce something shortly that might satisfy the member’s inquiry.
NHS Lanarkshire (General Practitioners)
To ask the Scottish Executive how many general practitioner practices it has taken action against since May 2007 for having broken their contract with NHS Lanarkshire. (S3O-9604)
The Scottish Government has taken no action on contractual grounds against any GP practice in NHS Lanarkshire since May 2007.
Is the cabinet secretary aware that the MacAlister GP practice in Uddingston, which operates from two separate buildings, decided towards the end of last year to close the Old Mill surgery in Uddingston, which serves almost 2,000 of its patients, in order to consolidate its services in a single surgery at the Viewpark health centre, which would serve all 9,000 of its patients? NHS Lanarkshire says that the proposed change is within the GP’s contract and that no breach of contract is involved. Does the Scottish Government intend to look into that situation? Does it plan to reopen negotiations with GPs on that aspect of their contracts? Does it intend to find a way to force GPs to keep open all their facilities once they have been established in a community?
I am not aware of the detail of the situation that Michael McMahon describes, but I am happy to look into it and to write to him after doing so.
It is important to put on the record the process that is in place to deal with contractual disputes that concern GP practices. In the first instance, contracts are a matter for health boards and individual GP practices. However, should a GP practice or a GP challenge a decision by a health board on a contractual issue, the Scottish ministers and officials operate a dispute mechanism. Given that process, Michael McMahon will understand that I must, as a minister, take care in what I say outwith that process about any situation. However, I will look into the issue that he raises and I will respond in writing.
I am afraid that we have no time for further general questions, so I will move straight to the next item of business.
Previous
Tasers