Chamber and committees

What are the trigger mechanisms here? According to the consultation, the core funding provided by the Scottish Government for national parks was £20.9 million, and the core budget of the Galloway national park might not be as large as that required by the other two parks. However, given the context of finite resources, what will be the trigger mechanism that will determine for you whether a national park is the best course of action, compared with alternative ways or routes by which, as Maurice Golden and others have suggested, some of the benefits that it might generate could be achieved?

Are we agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

The last of our new petitions, PE2118, lodged by Tobias Christie on behalf of the Speymouth Environmental Partnership, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to review the Flood Risk Management (Scotland) Act 2009 and improve flood alleviation and management processes by appointing an independent panel of engineers, economists and geomorphologists to support the design of flood risk management plans.

Douglas Ross MSP had hoped to be able to join us for our consideration of the petition, but he is unfortunately detained in another committee.

In the background to the petition, concerns are raised that those responsible for designing the flood risk management systems are often distant from and unaffected by the risks and that the system is designed around flood warnings rather than flood prevention, management or alleviation. Responding to the petition, the Scottish Government tells us that it has implemented a comprehensive framework under the Flood Risk Management (Scotland) Act 2009, which places flood risk management at the core of its environmental policies.

The response also refers to a joint Scottish Government and Convention of Scottish Local Authorities flood risk management working group, which is considering funding and governance arrangements for flood protection schemes. The Scottish Government is also developing the country’s first flood risk strategy, which it says is focused on enhancing community flood resilience by integrating people, places and processes. It also notes that it is the responsibility of local authorities to develop specific actions to address flood risk and improve resilience.

We have also received a submission from the petitioners, which highlights the point that local communities are not aware of the public consultations on flooding and that, when SEPA has issued questionnaires, the questions appear to have been designed to reinforce its perspective—that brings us back to the arguments that we had on consultations at the beginning of the meeting. The petitioners also raised concerns about the processes that SEPA uses to model future flooding and the challenges that communities face in trying to share views and ideas for flood management with SEPA and relevant local authorities.

Do members have any suggestions on how we might proceed?

Essentially, you are arguing that this is as far as we can take the petition, given the Scottish Government’s position. Do colleagues have any other comments? It is an important area but, given the Scottish Government’s response, it is difficult to see what more we can actually do to take the issue forward. On that basis, are colleagues content, however reluctantly, to close the petition?

It is an interesting issue, and it might well be that the prevalence of drones will lead to this being a more relevant matter subsequently. However, given the evidence that we have received, I think that that is the correct course of action. Do members agree to close the petition?

Members indicated agreement.

PE2062, which was lodged by Bill Alexander, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to introduce a national screening programme for prostate cancer. Again, we are joined for this petition by Jackie Baillie.

We previously considered the petition on 7 February 2024, when we agreed to write to the United Kingdom National Screening Committee. Its written submission explains that it

“does not recommend prostate cancer screening because the prostate-specific antigen (PSA) blood test, which is usually the first step towards a diagnosis, is not nearly reliable enough as a primary screening test.”

It has contributed to thinking on the design of the TRANSFORM randomised control trial, which will

“aim to establish if various testing strategies, including using MRI scans up front for screening, could tip the balance in favour of a screening programme, for example by detecting disease that PSA testing misses and by reducing the amount of insignificant disease found.”

The screening committee is

“commissioning an analysis of prostate cancer screening in response to”

submissions

“that were put forward during”

the

“annual call for topics”.

The screening recommendations are reviewed every three years.

I am content to invite Jackie Baillie to comment again.

As someone who had a high and then an increasing, if not yet alarming, PSA reading, which has led to more than one MRI scan and a biopsy to establish my own situation, I can very much testify that that process offered what I thought was a model route to a safer outcome.

I am interested to know what the TRANSFORM trial will generate, but I concur with Jackie Baillie that, if the committee is content, we should write to the cabinet secretary to ask what might happen in the interim. We should also write to the UK National Screening Committee to seek an update on the analysis of the prostate cancer screening.

This is a major issue. Across the country, the mentality among what I call west of Scotland men is still that they tend to hope for the best. Frankly, we need to be a little bit more proactive and comprehensive if we are to properly address and save people from the consequences of prostate cancer, which, if properly diagnosed, can be properly treated.

advance the aims of it.

I am reluctantly of that view.

PE1916, lodged by Councillors Douglas Philand and Donald Kelly, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to instigate a public inquiry on the political and financial management of the A83 Rest and Be Thankful project, and to provide a permanent solution for the route. We are joined by our MSP colleague the indefatigable Jackie Baillie, who is a regular contributor to our proceedings and maintains an interest in this and our subsequent petition, as well as other petitions.

We last considered the petition at our meeting on 21 February 2024, when we agreed to write to the Cabinet Secretary for Transport, who has responded to the committee. The cabinet secretary states that

“delivery of a permanent and resilient solution is a priority”,

with the publication of draft orders expected by the end of the year. Time is running out. The Scottish Government estimates that the cost of the permanent long-term solution will be between £405 million and £470 million, with a more accurate estimate of the cost expected as work to progress stage 3 of the design manual for roads and bridges develops. The cabinet secretary has also provided information about the medium-term solution, including improvements to the old military road, which is expected to take 12 months to complete once construction gets under way, subject to weather conditions.

We have also received a submission from the petitioners detailing the concerns of the Rest and Be Thankful campaign group. Those concerns include Transport Scotland’s unwillingness to provide a two-way road as part of the medium-term solution; the continued threat of landslides on the route and whether that risk has been properly evaluated; and concerns that funding decisions are made annually, which means that there is no guarantee that the money will be in place when it is needed to complete the project.

Before we consider anything afresh, I invite Jackie Baillie to address the committee.