Seòmar agus comataidhean

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.

PE2009, which was lodged by Caroline Gordon, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to ensure fair access to Scottish universities for residents in Scotland and the United Kingdom by reviewing university business models and Scottish Government funding arrangements.

As we have been when we have considered the petition previously, we are joined by our MSP colleague Michael Marra. Good morning.

We previously considered the petition at our meeting on 6 March, when we agreed to write to the Commissioner for Fair Access, the Scottish Government and Universities Scotland—on Mr Marra’s suggestion, I think. We asked those organisations whether data from each university on how many Scotland-domiciled students are accepted on to each course annually could be published.

The Commissioner for Fair Access, Universities Scotland and the Scottish Government all noted that publishing that data alone could be misleading and raised concerns about the complexity of sharing complete data that would be useful to prospective students. The commissioner’s submission explains that

“A low count of entrants does not necessarily imply that it is more difficult to gain entry, just as a high count of entrants does not necessarily imply that it is easier to gain entry.”

Universities Scotland noted that

“The use of contextual admissions and minimum entry requirements ... adds a level of complexity”

to the data picture. Its submission states that that

“would need to be captured and reflected in any student-facing data ... so that the applicants ... are not misinformed.”

The Scottish Government’s submission states:

“It is for the universities themselves to decide: how to distribute the places between faculties; the courses they offer; and how many of the total funded places will be available on each course.”

Universities Scotland’s written submission states:

“the number of funded undergraduate places available to Scottish-domiciled applicants for academic year 2024/25 sits above the pre-pandemic, high watermark level.”

The petitioner’s written submission highlights the growing financial challenges that universities face, and she believes that widening access initiatives look

“like a sticking plaster on a gaping wound”.

Her submission urges the committee to call for the publication of admission figures so that they can be analysed to

“consider what needs to change”.

On the face of it, the options for the committee to take the petition much further forward are limited. However, given that Mr Marra has been invariably creative in his contributions to the committee, we wish to hear from him before we take any final decision.

PE2050, which was lodged by Lee Watson on behalf of Ythan seal watch, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to amend the current guidance on flying recreational drones on national nature reserves so that their use is prohibited without a permit; that permits include a flight time, date and agreed flight path; that operation is in accordance with the drone code; and that advice on the legal status of the wildlife and habitats is provided.

We previously considered the petition on 21 February, when we agreed to write to NatureScot, Police Scotland and the United Kingdom Government. All committee members were intrigued by the issues raised by the petition and the use of drones in respect of wildlife. Police Scotland’s response states:

“there is only one reported and prosecuted wildlife crime case involving drone use in recent memory.”

Its submission explains that it is “challenging” to quantify the number of investigations into suspected wildlife crimes of this nature but that, since 24 January, Police Scotland has logged 400 drone incidents, the vast majority of which were

“notifications of legitimate drone use.”

All wildlife crime liaison officers in Police Scotland were canvassed and reported that, beyond that one noted earlier incident, there were no significant incidents of drone-related wildlife crime.

On the question of byelaws, NatureScot states that it

“would only consider creating byelaws for”

national nature reserves

“or any other protected area where there is clear evidence of their need and the likely benefits to protected species, as well as evidence that a byelaw is the only or best way to address a particular issue.”

The NatureScot submission also notes:

“The process for making byelaws is very complex and time consuming, and ensuring compliance can also be resource-intensive.”

I was quite surprised by the evidence that we received. In the light of that, do colleagues have an idea of how we might proceed?