Chamber and committees

I am coming to the A75 at the end of my speech, so Mr Carson will hear what I have to say about it.

Mr Gove went on to say:

“The UK Ministry will then formalise agreements with each of the Scottish local authorities, including the arrangements for information sharing, monitoring and ... evaluation”.

The technical note for lead authorities in Great Britain also refers to spot checks on those bodies by the UK Government, and to a requirement for

“reports to be sent by them to the UK Secretary of State”,

who is now Michael Gove. That regulatory role will become a function of the increasing army of civil servants who are based across the road in Queen Elizabeth house—the UK Government’s hub in Edinburgh—which is now home to 3,000 UK civil servants, who cost the Scottish taxpayer £250 million.

The UK Government plans to form direct relationships with Scottish local authorities, public and voluntary sector agencies and communities. Those areas of policy are all devolved to this Parliament, so if that is not an attack on devolution, I do not know what is.

To ask the Scottish Government what discussions the rural affairs secretary has had with ministerial colleagues and rural businesses regarding action to improve and enhance rural skills development. (S6O-00392)

I am sorry—I am no taking any mair.

I turn to the next assault on devolution—the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020, much of which is concerned with ensuring that goods and services that are produced in one part of the UK can be sold without restriction in all other parts. The act creates the means for a race to the bottom when it comes to consumer and environmental protections. It prevents the Scottish Parliament from effectively legislating in a range of areas, including laws that cover the food that people put on their tables, which in Scotland is currently produced to high EU animal welfare and food safety standards. Those standards will be undermined by Scotland having to accept the lower standards that a UK Government sets in its desperate pursuit of harmful trade deals.

Members are aware that, since my election, I have campaigned on that very issue. I have learnt a lot from Leicester farmer Joseph Stanley, and have warned of the risks that the trade deals pose to Scottish agriculture. Products that are brought in will include chemicals the use of which is currently not allowed in Scotland—hormones and antibiotics such as carbadox, cloxacillin and ractopamine, which is intended to make pigs leaner. All those chemicals are currently used in meat production in Australia, America and Brazil—countries with which the UK is entering into trade deals.

The internal market act does not just threaten future areas of policy. The Scottish Government has already pointed out that, had the act been in place in 2018, the Scottish Parliament would not have been able to pass its world-leading legislation on minimum unit pricing for alcohol. It is in fact doubtful that even Scottish licensing rules, which prohibit alcohol promotion through discounts, would be allowed under the act.

UK Government ministers claim that no specific powers have been removed from Holyrood, but that claim misses the point. Section 50 of the act gives Westminster the power to make financial provision in a range of devolved areas, such as health, education and transport. The priorities for capital spending in those areas are set in Scotland and funding is allocated from a block grant from Westminster. The new powers allow Westminster to set the priorities, which takes power away from this Parliament and the Scottish Government.

Through those new powers, the UK Government has stated that it will invest in the A75—the main road from Gretna to Stranraer in my region of South Scotland. Concerned constituents have raised with me that the UK Government is only interested in investing in the A75 so that it can create a direct express route to transport nuclear radioactive waste from the proposed new nuclear power stations to dump in Beaufort’s Dyke in the North Channel of the Irish Sea.

I have written to the UK Government and asked for its commitment that Beaufort’s Dyke will not be reopened as a dump site for nuclear and radioactive waste as it was used previously. I ask the minister to join me in that call.

I call on the UK Government to stop its attack on the Scottish Parliament and encourage the Scottish Government to continue to do everything it can to protect this place.

I welcome the opportunity to speak in the debate and to highlight the blatant attack on the Scottish Parliament’s powers by the Westminster Government that is under way. As the motion states, the UK’s shared prosperity fund is nothing other than an assault on the Scottish devolution settlement and the Scotland Act, which is fundamental to our Parliament.

As the Westminster Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, Michael Gove—described by his own colleagues as scheming, unscrupulous and dangerous—is now in charge of spending around £4.6 billion a year on the UK’s shared prosperity fund.

That fund includes the UK community renewal fund, the community ownership fund and the bizarrely named levelling up fund. That funding comes from Scotland’s former contribution to the EU structural funds, which, prior to Brexit, came back through the Scottish Government. That power was devolved, but the UK Government in Westminster has grabbed back that process.

Mr Gove has made clear his commitment to undermine this Parliament. He stated that his department would establish direct relationships with

“councils, voluntary and community sector organisations and local education providers such as universities.”

I can take a really quick one, because I am sure that I can read Mr Carson’s mind at this point.

Will the First Minister join me in thanking all the staff, volunteers and people in Scotland who have helped make Scotland the first United Kingdom nation to give the extra vaccine dose to half of over-50s? I remind members that I am part of NHS Dumfries and Galloway’s vaccination team.

I welcome the opportunity to speak in this important debate ahead of world pancreatic cancer day tomorrow, 18 November, and I congratulate Clare Adamson, who is sitting right in front of me, on securing it. Clare has done a huge amount of work to raise awareness of pancreatic cancer, and has led the debate each year since 2017.

I am also glad that Miles Briggs and Gillian Martin mentioned former MSP John Scott, and it is good to hear how well he is doing. I thank the clinicians and staff who care for people with pancreatic cancer. I remind members that I am still a nurse, and many of those folks are my former colleagues.

It is worth noting that the Covid pandemic has created many additional challenges for cancer services across Scotland. I agree with Pancreatic Cancer Action Scotland that increasing awareness, encouraging awareness of symptoms earlier, improving pathways to diagnosis, and support, information and care are more important than ever before.

As colleagues across the chamber have stated, pancreatic cancer is currently the deadliest common cancer in Scotland, with statistics indicating that, each year in Scotland, 800 people die within just two weeks of a diagnosis. That is a pretty stark statistic.

The Scottish Government has invested in research, and its current action plan, “Recovery and Redesign: An Action Plan for Cancer Services”, recognises the disease and less survivable cancers. The announcement of £653,000 of funding to support the Scottish HepatoPancreatoBiliary Network’s improving pancreatic cancer pathways project is extremely welcome.

The example of research on which I will focus my comments, and which Gillian Martin also touched on, is the Precision-Panc platform. I spoke about it last year, too. Not all pancreatic cancers are the same. Precision-Panc clinical trials are delivered through the NHS, and match people who have a diagnosis of pancreatic cancer to the clinical trial that is most likely to work for them. Precision medicine is about tailoring treatments to an individual’s cancer. The trials, involving chemotherapy, are based on the genomics of the patient and their tumour.

The Precision-Panc platform brings together expertise from the University of Glasgow, Cancer Research UK, the Beatson Institute for Cancer Research, the CRUK Cambridge institute, the CRUK Manchester institute, the Institute of Cancer Research in London, the University of Oxford and the wider NHS.

There is excellent evidence that participation in clinical trials is associated with better outcomes for patients, so there can be optimism. Those types of clinical trials allow researchers across the country to share expertise and knowledge, as well as to create and share infrastructure, which leads to trials that are quicker to set up and recruit for.

The Precision-Panc platform has a proven track record of delivering positive outcomes and research for pancreatic cancer patients, so there can be optimism, as Clare Adamson has already stated. Development of biomarkers, prognosis and response to treatment have taken place and the platform has successfully identified why pancreatic cancer is resistant to some drug therapies.

Current trials are PRIMUS 001 to 005 as well as the master protocol, some of which are now reaching the clinical report stage, which is scheduled for early next year. I ask the minister to give a commitment that the Scottish Government will continue to support that vital work.

I briefly want to highlight the issues that my constituents across Galloway face when accessing treatment for pancreatic and other cancers. Despite living in one of the most remote and rural parts of Scotland, people who live in Dumfries and Galloway, including in Stranraer and Wigtownshire, do not have access to non-means-tested travel reimbursement to and from treatment appointments. I know that the minister is aware that I have pursued the matter and I ask that she continues to assist me in that work for constituents.

I again congratulate Clare Adamson on introducing the debate and I welcome the on-going work to advance treatment of pancreatic cancer, which means that we can continue to be optimistic.

Will the member take an intervention?

I have a quick supplementary question. There has been a lot of work done on tackling stigma; it is now less stigmatising for a person to say that they have anxiety or a mental health disorder. Has that contributed to the challenges? Has the fact that more people are coming out and saying that they have struggles affected the ability to tackle the issue? The Government has done a lot of work on support for mental health in that way.

Thanks, convener—it is very short.

I believe that cognisance will be taken of an approach dealing with rural areas such as Dumfries and Galloway and the Scottish Borders in my South Scotland region. Am I right in thinking that? This can be a yes-or-no answer.