Seòmar agus comataidhean

The Bristol mill at the entrance to Galashiels on the Edinburgh road closed in 1998. There have been many proposals to redevelop the site for commercial and housing purposes, but its listing is a major obstacle. Does the cabinet secretary consider that Historic Environment Scotland’s process to delist or even permit the demolition of listed mills needs to be reviewed to allow economic development to meet modern requirements?

First, I do not accept that the NHS in Scotland is in crisis. It avoided being in crisis even at the height of the Covid pandemic, which was due, in the main, to its extraordinary staff. Yes, it is in challenging circumstances, but to say that it is in crisis is scaremongering—not that Labour is known for that. If the NHS were in crisis, one would have thought that Labour would have assigned all its debating time to that subject, instead of holding this very short debate.

I will try my best to make the following points in the paltry four minutes that I have for my speech. In relation to pressures, Covid continues to have an impact. Research by the University of Strathclyde states:

“The challenges faced by NHS Scotland are not unique and reflect broader global trends within healthcare systems.”

In relation to demographics and the ageing population, it was estimated that a million Scottish residents were aged 65 years or older in 2020, but that number will rise to an estimated 1.4 million by 2040, which will represent 25 per cent of our population. I am one of those people. As we age, we require to use our medical services, including GP surgeries, pharmacies and hospitals, more and more. At 80, I can testify to that. An ageing population also means that there is a depleted available workforce.

In relation to policy interventions, the Scottish child payment, which has cost £1 billion since 2021, supports more than 326,000 families and mitigates Labour’s two-child benefit cap. Poverty equals disadvantage equals ill health. There are many Scotland-only preventative measures that will, in time, reduce pressures on our healthcare system. That is why the U-turn on the winter fuel payment by UK Labour—which was shamed into the change by pensioners and the Scottish Government—is welcome, before another Scottish winter hits home and hearth. It is a pity that we cannot shame Labour into ditching the two-child benefit cap. [Interruption.] I have four minutes—of course I will not give way.

In relation to staffing, there are fewer people in the working population, but UK visa restrictions, Brexit and Labour’s policy to increase employer national insurance contributions, which will cost NHS Scotland an additional £191 million in one financial year, all have an impact on staffing pressures across the entire health landscape. That includes general practices and pharmacies, which I know are not recruiting because of the added NI burden—it is a tax on jobs.

In relation to pay and conditions, NHS nurses, midwives, paramedics and other healthcare staff across Scotland have voted to accept an 8 per cent pay deal over two years. The figure in the Scottish deal is significantly higher than the 3 per cent that was recommended by pay review bodies in England and Wales, where pay negotiations are continuing and strike action is a real threat.

The hospital at home service has a role in reducing the time that people spend in hospital and leads to better recovery. All such interventions, preventative measures and modern ways of treating people are reducing—and will, in time, further reduce—pressures across our healthcare landscape. We need a wider review, given the value and cost of interventions to reduce health pressures.

The Labour Party has to be honest about the impact of the labour gaps that have been exacerbated by Brexit, which Sir Keir Starmer is now embracing, even though he used to oppose it. The visa restrictions and the dreadful burden on employers through the increase in their national insurance contributions are all UK Labour policies to which I have referred in this very short debate, which, as I anticipated, is only about chasing tabloid headlines—it has nothing to do with reality.

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.

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 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.

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?

I have two comments. First, when we had our usual suspects, that certainly was not because of lack of effort by me, committee members and officials to have other people come in. We could not really compel people—we can, but nobody has ever used that power. Secondly, the private briefing that I referred to was very important because it allowed vulnerable people to speak off the record. They were free to say what they did. Although we could not directly refer to what they said, it was at the back of our minds when we were dealing with oral evidence in a formal capacity later.

Will the member take an intervention?