Seòmar agus comataidhean

Oh! You have caught me on the hop, Presiding Officer—not for the first time.

“What on earth is the Scottish Law Commission?” I hear you ask—or perhaps not. I say that even knowing that commissioners and staff are in the public gallery. Is that a brave or a foolhardy move? I leave that to the jury.

As for Michael Clancy, we go back a long way, especially as I twice convened the Justice Committee—I will leave it at that; my lips are sealed.

Quietly and effectively in the background, understated to the point of invisibility—that is a compliment—the Scottish Law Commission recommends reforms to improve, simplify and update the law of Scotland. It constantly keeps its eye open to the development of the law and ensures that it keeps pace with changes in the way that we live and work.

Outdated or unnecessarily complex law makes for injustice and inefficiency and leads to law being out of step—or even being bad law—instead of fulfilling the needs of ordinary people. That is bang on.

The Scottish Law Commission offers the Scottish Government independent—I stress the word “independent”—advice on law reform. Public consultation is an essential step in the process to ensure that the recommendations are workable and acceptable. For example, as we have heard, the Scottish Parliament has passed legislation to implement the commission’s recommendations on the abolition of feudal tenure of land and on the protection of the rights and interests of adults who are incapable of managing their own affairs.

The commission has issued reports over many decades, such as the report in 2000 on real burdens. In 2010, the commission established links with the Malawi Law Commission, and, in 2020, it conducted a review of cohabitation law. In addition, the commission ran a social media campaign entitled, “60 bills for 60 years”—I do not know whether it deliberately made sure that it had one for every year, but that is how it has worked out.

The Scottish Law Commission must be distinguished from the Law Society of Scotland, the professional body for more than 13,000 Scottish solicitors, which was established in 1949. It aims to be

“a world-class professional body, understanding and serving the needs of its members and the public.”

I took that straight from the society’s website, so I am not making any comment about it.

The Scottish Law Commission is completely different from that. Quietly working off stage, in the wings, out of the spotlight of political dramas, the commission is invaluable in seeking out solutions to changing legal requirements, casting its collective beady eye over Scottish Government-proposed changes in the law or, indeed, suggesting changes that the Government ought to be considering—or not considering, as the case may be.

Politicians are often in too much of a hurry, driven by tabloid headlines and public clamour—of course, I exclude myself from that; my deliberations are measured. In contrast, the Scottish Law Commission, with its expertise, takes its time. Although it is ultimately the politicians who decide what form laws are to take, it is wise for the Scottish Government and, indeed, the United Kingdom Government to pay heed to the Scottish Law Commission’s comments.

On its 60th anniversary, I hope that I have helped to publicise the real, in-depth significance of the Scottish Law Commission to Scotland’s everyday life. I hope that I have also made it sound a wee bit sexy.

I agree with a lot of what Alexander Stewart says, but we did build a third bridge over the Forth, and we built the Borders railway, after decades of dither and delay by the UK Government. Although I am prepared to criticise my Government, it is not the case that it has done nothing in transport that is worth while. That is very unfair.

This point might be left field, but I have never understood why the park-and-ride facility is on the north side of the Sheriffhall roundabout and not on the south side. It means that people, when parking their cars, need to go around the roundabout to the park-and-ride facility before going into Edinburgh. The park-and-ride facility at the Penicuik end is on the south side of the road. The cabinet secretary might not have an answer to that, but I would like to know whether the facility could be moved.

I congratulate the member on securing the debate.

Way back before the Sheriffhall roundabout was born, City of Edinburgh District Council rejected, pre-construction, the proposal for an inbuilt underpass to future proof the roundabout, advising that it was not worth the cost. How much easier it would have been had that proposal gone ahead—but that was then, and this is now.

It is some considerable time since I first raised my concerns about the Sheriffhall roundabout, which is a major link into and out of the Borders and Midlothian by way of the A7. It is also used by cars travelling eastwards to the Borders and the A68, although there is now, off the city bypass, a slip lane to the A68. Incidentally, Midlothian is one of the fastest-growing areas in Scotland; one need only take a trip around it to see the number of homes.

For more than 20 years, I have, as an MSP, used the roundabout regularly in travelling to and from my constituency, and I have found that, during those 20-plus years, traffic has worsened, with long tailbacks earlier and earlier in the day.

In 2018, the Edinburgh and south-east Scotland city region deal, to which Miles Briggs referred and which had funding from both the UK and Scottish Governments, put forward a proposal for grade separation, with a flyover across the Edinburgh city bypass, taking the A702 north, at a cost at the time of £120 million.

I traced my first question on the subject back to 2017, and another to 10 November 2022, when the then minister responsible confirmed that the project was progressing, and that the public inquiry was set for 30 January 2023. In a later debate, I stressed the issue of the unsafe conditions for cyclists and pedestrians, as the roundabout is known to cyclists as the “meat grinder”. Indeed, I have rarely seen a cyclist navigating the roundabout—and no wonder. Heaven help us if there were to be an accident at the roundabout; apart from human tragedy, we would have traffic seize to a stop in all directions on all the feeder roads into Edinburgh and beyond.

Although the delay was due in part to the 2,773 objections that were lodged, I found it—and still find it—extraordinary that the Greens have always opposed the improvement. Just recently, Lorna Slater, speaking on behalf of the Greens on 15 January this year at the Economy and Fair Work Committee, referred to it as “a dinosaur”, as she considered that it conflicted with Scotland’s climate goals, such as the aim to reduce car travel by 20 per cent.

The Greens’ criticism is misplaced. It is, apparently, no matter to them that buses from the Borders and Midlothian, and the lorries that are delivering goods to and from those areas, use that route and the roundabout because they have to do so, as the Borders railway cannot carry freight. That is not to mention the police, ambulance and fire and rescue services travelling on those roads. Indeed, in the proposed design, there was to be—and there will be—a cycle and pedestrian walkway, which I think is actually very green. Instead, we have lines of vehicles spurting out exhaust fumes as they queue for the light sequences to change. That is hardly good for the environment, and hardly green.

The public inquiry has concluded and, although I know that the Scottish Government remains committed to its £120 million contribution to the project that was announced in 2018, it remains a fact that the independent report has been in the Government’s hands for more than a year and there has been—to some extent—radio silence.

These are my concerns. Delay is annoying enough, but there is also the inevitable inflation of costs for which the Scottish Government will be liable. The £120 million contribution is fixed; it is predicted that the cost will possibly be £200 million, but, going on the cost of past capital projects, I really think that that is optimistic.

So, where are we with the project? I support Miles Briggs and others, and if the Government could give us—and my constituents—an idea of progress, I would like to hear it before I retire next year. Thank you.

On a point of order, Deputy Presiding Officer. Despite the technician’s endeavours, which I applaud, I have been unable to vote. I would have voted no.

I am not surprised that Miles Briggs has launched such a campaign—had he not, I would probably have done so myself. My constituents in the Borders and Midlothian have to use that junction all the time—as do I, because it connects to the A68 and the A7 in my constituency. I add my own concerns about the delay to the project going ahead, because it will only become more costly the longer that the delay continues.

Will the member take an intervention now?

I will be extremely brief. Mr Rowley and many other members of the chamber work very hard as MSPs, as do I. They are really decent people who work for their constituents. Do you not think that the media holds some blame for the way in which we are presented given that most of us are very hard working?

Oh, I was hoping for 15 minutes, but there we go. I wonder, Mr Carlaw, what was making your face redden during that discussion.

Indeed, and that relates to what Oliver Mundell said about the work of panels not being a substitute for the formal processes of Parliament.

I refer members to paragraph 66 of the committee’s report, which says:

“While deliberative democracy, and participation more generally, are important tools to support the work of the Parliament, we agree ... that ‘public participation will not be suitable for or resolve every issue, and will be one of many evidence sources used to make decisions. In these situations, credibility and trust can be maintained by being open and transparent about how decisions are made.’”

That underlines the importance of making clear exactly what the panel is for. The elements that public participation brings out might be valuable, or they might not, but it certainly means that people can genuinely be part of a process of involvement.

I agree with members who have said that we must improve engagement with the wider public, particularly through our work on committees. I think that people’s panels are a modest improvement, which I support. That is not a criticism—I am simply being realistic. I will give an example of what we could do. Personally, I hold my surgeries in Tesco, with my messages and my trolley at my side, right next to customer services. I hope that, in a small way, that reduces barriers to meeting me as a politician—Ah’m jist a wumman out wi ma shopping. That small change in my approach has helped people to engage with me. If that could be expanded so that people were generally less intimidated by politicians and politics, we might get even more value from the participation process.