Chamber and committees

It is therefore welcome that SNP council leaders across the country have warmly welcomed the funding. In that spirit, I congratulate them on the positive work that they have done to successfully help to take forward local bids for innovative projects that will help to breathe new life into towns, villages and rural and coastal communities across Scotland.

The UK Government is committed to levelling up in every corner of our United Kingdom, backing local projects that will make a real difference to all our communities. Together, the three funds that have been announced will help to unleash the potential of people and places right across our country. The £200 million of funding through the UK Government’s renewal fund will help local areas to prepare for the launch of the UK shared prosperity fund in 2022. That scheme will see UK-wide funding to match all former EU national and regional development funds, reaching £1.5 billion a year.

There is incredible talent right across our great country, and this national investment will help to unlock that potential with projects such as the £218,000 fund for employment and wellbeing programmes across housing associations in the Scottish Borders. That programme will help to deliver digital skills and financial literacy, as well as promoting positive mental health. Another example is the £400,000 to create a seaweed academy in Argyll and Bute. I am not sure what that will look like, but I am sure that my colleague Donald Cameron will talk about it later.

Here, in my Lothian region—and, in fact, in Ben Macpherson’s constituency—we have £16 million to help to restore the historic B-listed Granton gas holder. That project will help to kick-start the regeneration of Edinburgh’s waterfront. As Edinburgh MSPs, we should be right behind that, driving that investment for our area. It is an ambitious urban development project that will deliver sustainable economic growth and real jobs for Edinburgh.

There are so many great projects across Scotland that I cannot touch on them all in the time that I have in the debate. They will work to improve and invest in our communities and will drive success for their future prosperity and wellbeing. That is why we, on the Conservative benches, and the UK Government want to see this investment in our communities. For too long, communities across Scotland have felt left behind and forgotten about.

Today’s debate is very much a tale of two Governments. What has the SNP-Green Government ever done to level up communities across Scotland?

I do not have time. Sorry.

From what we see in the motion today, the answer is simply nothing. For 14 years, the SNP Government has taken powers off local authorities. The UK Government is working with local government to empower our communities. I say to SNP and Green MSPs that they should stop talking Scotland down. It is time that both of Scotland’s Governments worked together in the national interest to benefit every community in every part of our country. These investments in all our communities show that people and the UK Government can level up our country and drive economic growth here, in Edinburgh, and right across Scotland.

Will the member take an intervention?

Will the member take an intervention?

The problem that the minister has is that if the UK Government’s shared prosperity fund is so flawed, why are Scottish National Party council leaders across Scotland applauding it and welcoming this huge investment in our country?

I will not have time, unless the Presiding Officer has any time in hand.

I, too, congratulate Clare Adamson on again securing a members’ business debate on the issue, and on all her campaigning on it, which she has done with distinction for many years in the Parliament. As the co-convener of the Parliament’s cross-party group on cancer, I am pleased to take part in this year’s debate, as I have done, along with Clare, every single year. I look forward to seeing lots of purple being displayed across landmarks and across our country—especially on social media, which I think has become an even bigger hit—as we aim to increase knowledge and understanding of pancreatic cancer.

As with all cancers, early detection and intervention are critical. As members have touched on, the five-year survival rate for pancreatic cancer is still just 5.6 per cent. Evelyn Tweed referred to other more survivable cancers, for which the average five-year survival rate is nearly 69 per cent. Arguably, with pancreatic cancer, early detection is even more critical than it is with other cancers, as the five-year survival rate increases to around 30 per cent among those who are diagnosed earlier and who are able to access life-saving surgery. It is a huge concern that 80 per cent of people with pancreatic cancer are still not diagnosed until the cancer has developed to an advanced stage.

Tomorrow is world pancreatic cancer day, and this year’s theme is “It’s About Time”. Improving awareness of the risks and symptoms of pancreatic cancer is crucial, and it is important that we all work to ensure that we improve the survival rates.

I commend Pancreatic Cancer Action Scotland on its mission of making the 2020s the decade of change for pancreatic cancer. We all want and can sign up to that. Over the past 50 years, there has been a lack of significant improvement in survival rates, so we need a concerted effort to ensure that more people are diagnosed early and survive the disease.

The past year and a half has been dominated by Covid-19, and the shift to focus our national health service on treating people for the virus has resulted in public health messaging shifting away from encouraging people to come forward and present their health concerns. We all share the concern that that will impact on outcomes for all cancers, and recent research by Pancreatic Cancer UK revealed that 31 per cent of Scots say that they are delaying seeking treatment. We need to turn that around and ensure that the message is sent out that people should not delay taking concerns to their GP or other medical professionals.

Of those people who are less likely to seek help, around half of them—49 per cent—say that they do not want to be a burden on the NHS, while 24 per cent say that they are still concerned about contracting Covid-19. Making people aware that our NHS is up and running and that it wants people to present is very important. I hope that the debate sends the message that people should be getting checked out if they exhibit any of the symptoms that other members have outlined.

It is clear that we have a long way to go to improve survival rates. Sadly, we have not seen the 5 per cent rate get to 10 per cent, 15 per cent and then 20 per cent. When the minister closes the debate, I hope that he will point out what work will be taken forward to review patient pathways, which is one of the key things that we all want to be looked at, especially post pandemic.

I thank all those who have worked and campaigned over many years to support the work of Pancreatic Cancer UK, including my constituent Kim Rowan and the wonderful Lynda Murray. They have done so much work; sadly, they cannot yet come to the Parliament, but I am sure that they will be here for next year’s debate. That is our hope, too.

Clare Adamson started by talking about hope, which is really important. For me, the person who really personifies that is our former MSP colleague, John Scott. John is well and living his happy post-politics life to the full. Examples of people who have successfully fought pancreatic cancer are really important for people and their families who are facing the hell of a pancreatic cancer diagnosis.

The debate has once again given us the opportunity to highlight the great work of Pancreatic Cancer UK and the principles and work of pancreatic cancer awareness month. Much progress needs to be made in the years ahead, and I hope that MSPs from all parties will continue to speak out and keep pressure on ministers. Above all, I agree with what Clare Adamson laid out: there is hope, and we should all work towards a better future.

Do you accept that that goes against the Government’s approach to date, which has looked at certainty and wider stakeholder engagement on taxation? Is the approach purely due to the circumstances of the pandemic or is it a direction of travel that ministers are considering?

Good morning to the minister and the panel. I have a couple of questions with regard to the principles with which the Government has approached taxation. Is it appropriate to alter the basis of taxation retrospectively, as the order that is before us will do?

Okay. Thank you.