|
7. Mr. Malcolm Bruce: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the review of the roads programme as it affects the A92 and the A96.[5770]
Mr. Chisholm: Until the conclusions of the review are known, no further procedural work will be carried out on the major scheme to dual the A90, formerly the A92, between Balmedie and Tipperty. Work on minor improvement schemes, and on measures to promote safety, will continue.
On the A96, the current construction work on the Blackburn and Kintore bypasses will provide a further 10 km of new dual carriageway by autumn 1998.
Mr. Bruce: I thank the Minister for that reply, but does he recognise that there is a great deal of frustration and anger about the constant changes in decisions, particularly as they affect the Tipperty section of the now A90 between Ellon and Aberdeen? The scheme has been dropped, picked up and dropped again on three separate occasions. It was promised by the previous Government, but they broke their promise.
Will the Government undertake that the Inveransey improvement and the Keith bypass will be fully considered in the review, and will he deny what has been suggested in some press reports--that those schemes are not to be reviewed at all? A failure to consider them will not be acceptable in the north-east where there has been a great growth in traffic and population in the past 10 years. We deserve the same standard of roads as the rest of Scotland.
Mr. Chisholm: The hon. Gentleman has acknowledged that the previous Government dropped the Balmedie-to-Tipperty stretch from the roads programme. The other schemes to which he referred, such as the Keith bypass, were never in that roads programme.
The Government are seeking to introduce a coherent rationale into road-building decisions and to replace the previous Government's make-believe roads programme with a real one. The previous Government may have promised the hon. Gentleman and his constituents roads here and there and bypasses at Keith and Fochabers, but there was no money in the budget or the projected budgets to pay for them. The previous Government's roads budget projected for five years' time would have been wholly taken up by three major private finance initiative roads. That is the inherited cut roads budget that we have to sort out.
Mr. Savidge: In planning for the A92 and the A96, will my hon. Friend consider the possibility of a western peripheral route around Aberdeen, linking those two roads to the A90? In considering such a scheme, he may like to reflect on the importance of north-east Scotland not just to the economy of Scotland but to the United Kingdom as a whole. The scheme would be environmentally friendly, would relieve traffic congestion. It would also be popular, having the support of representative groups and councils in the area.
Mr. Chisholm: The scheme for the Aberdeen peripheral route has been developed by Aberdeen city council, and the route has never been trunked. However, I undertake that the scheme, along with others, will be considered in the strategic review that we are carrying out.
Mrs. Ewing: The Minister has made a vehement defence of the Government's structural attitude towards their expenditure policies. However, does he not realise that, in December 1996, the Scottish Office suggested that bypasses in Keith and Fochabers would not only be amenities but were necessary in the interests of road safety? The Scottish Office concluded that three years might elapse before the schemes were carried out, so will the Minister tell us when the Government believe that work can be undertaken in the Keith and Fochabers areas? Keith is no longer in my constituency, but the areas share the same concerns. At present, we have a primrose path, with the additional penalty of the hike in petrol prices. We want action on transport in the north-east of Scotland.
Mr. Chisholm: My earlier point was that the previous Government could not say when the Keith and Fochabers bypasses would come into being. They sent out messages that they would like to build them, but their forward programme did not include the money to carry those projects out. That is why I said we have inherited a make-believe roads programme.
I am aware of the strong arguments for the Keith and Fochabers bypasses. I understand the environmental reasons why people in those communities want the bypasses, as well as the other arguments for them. I will be mindful of those issues as the review proceeds.
That part of the north of Scotland to which the hon. Members for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) and for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) referred--indeed, the whole of the north of Scotland--have lost nothing from our review, because the roads to which those hon. Members referred were not timetabled by the previous Government.
Nursery Education (Rural Areas)
8. Mr. Kirkwood: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the current arrangements for nursery education in rural areas. [5771]
Mr. Wilson: Many councils have already found innovative and cost-effective ways of responding to the challenges of low nursery pupil numbers, both at their own hand and by working with the voluntary sector. The issue will be included in our consultations on future funding arrangements.
Mr. Kirkwood: I am grateful for that answer. I understand that conclusions are in hand, and I welcome that. I also acknowledge the difficulty that the Minister has because of the scheme that he inherited, intrinsically flawed as it was. Does he acknowledge that it is a near impossibility in sparsely populated areas to get a viable group of 20 pupils? Given that this year only £1,100 is available in the voucher scheme, will he give an undertaking that, if local authorities find it impossible to provide equal standards of quality for nursery provision in rural areas, he will treat that as a matter of urgency for the rest of the current financial year?
Mr. Wilson: On the hon. Gentlemen's final point, there is no question of lowering standards. Every provider of pre-school education will be subject to inspection, so standards will be a fundamental consideration, whether the provision is large or small, urban or rural.
I have some experience of the matter in my constituency. North Ayrshire ran one of the pilot schemes and secured almost 100 per cent. provision on Arran, where there are exactly the problems to which the hon. Gentleman referred--it can be done, but we are watching the matter closely. Once the pattern of provision is in place for the coming year, and if we find that there are gaps, we shall try--I have given this undertaking and repeat it today--to be supportive of local authorities in filling them.
Residential Homes
9. Mr. Godman: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to implement the recommendations contained in the report of the working group on residential care home registration procedures. [5772]
Mr. Galbraith: We are at present consulting on draft guidance to local authorities on a wide range of measures recommended in the working group's report. A Bill on the regulation and inspection of residential and domiciliary care will be introduced at a suitable opportunity.
Mr. Godman: May I remind my hon. Friend that his predecessor, the so-called Lord James Douglas-Hamilton, promised to implement with all speed those important recommendations? Does my hon. Friend agree that no general practitioner should be allowed to own a residential care home while acting as the residents' GP? Should not that rule hold for all the professions, including accountancy and law, as well as for the medical profession?
Mr. Galbraith: First, I recognise the considerable work that my hon. Friend has done in campaigning on behalf of the residents of such homes. As I said, we are seeking statutory powers to regulate, inspect and register not just residential homes but, for the first time, domiciliary care--that is an important step forward. My hon. Friend asked whether GPs should own such homes. I am consulting the various bodies involved and I hope that I will be able very soon to give him an answer of which he will approve.
Research Establishments
10. Mr. Eric Clarke: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, what meetings he has had with officials of the research establishments in Scotland to discuss the level of Government funding. [5773]
Mr. Wilson: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has not met officials of research establishments in Scotland to discuss the level of Government funding.
Mr. Clarke: I thank my hon. Friend for his reply. I raise this matter because there are some eminent establishments in Midlothian, such as Lasswade, Moredun, and the famous--or infamous--Roslin institution. The future seems to lie in biotechnology, yet funding for it is piecemeal and based on short-termism. The morale in the establishments is low, because people are on three-year contracts and when they are made redundant are paid accordingly. Will my hon. Friend get together with the universities and his colleagues at the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to tidy up the provision to those important establishments and the many others in Scotland and ensure that they are properly funded on a long-term basis?
Mr. Wilson: I recognise both the seriousness and the complexity of the issue that my hon. Friend has raised--rightly, given the research base in his constituency. At this stage, all I can say is that the Government, as funders of research and education institutes and also as employers of contract research staff, are considering how to deepen and broaden the concordat on contract research staff career management. The work is being co-ordinated by the Government's chief scientific adviser. It involves all relevant Government Departments and Scottish Office officials are therefore very much involved. I promise to keep my hon. Friend posted on progress.
| 
