³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ

I have two quick follow-up questions on that. It is often new start-up companies and entrepreneurs that are getting involved in the health tech sector and, in my experience, NHS boards have historically tended to associate too much risk in relation to contracting with those. I understand that—you obviously need to engage to be at the forefront, but doing so carries a significant risk. I am keen to hear your thoughts on the risk matrix.

My concern with the app is in regard to the timescale for the roll-out, assuming that that is successful, because the technology that sits behind it might well become outdated. For a historical example, it is like developing a web-based system. By the time that you have gone through all the protocols and controls and worked it up, no one is using a web-based system any more. What are your thoughts on that?

He will listen once we have written to him.

Secondly, we should highlight to the petitioner that there is an opportunity to submit a new petition in the next parliamentary session.

I agree with Mr Ewing and support the general idea of writing to SEPA, although perhaps not quite in the manner in which my colleague suggested. Nonetheless, the pertinent points have been made.

I think that the issue goes back to the question behind many petitions, which is about who is responsible. That question was raised earlier in relation to RAAC.

I have seen the issues that the petitioner raises in Angus. In 2023, Milton of Finavon was flooded and, a year later, no measures had been put in place to protect the community. Subsequently, in the past year, there has been some support from Angus Council as well as from Scottish and Southern Electricity Networks, for which I thank them. However, it was only by the grace of God that we did not have a bad storm season in 2024. The situation is unacceptable.

The Scottish Government has said that the governance structure for assisting communities with flood risk management is adequate, but that is not what I hear on the ground. I hear that it is slow, that there are limited opportunities for action and that no one is taking responsibility for what needs to be done. I think that, in addition to following Mr Ewing’s suggestion, we should write to the Scottish Government, asking how it is monitoring the governance structure and the interaction between communities and SEPA, local authorities and landowners, where appropriate.

I welcome those comments. We now have a situation in which Transport Scotland has acquiesced to the petitioner’s request and will run a campaign, which will be targeted at companies and the public, to raise awareness of the harms that are caused by roadside litter, with legislation being in place to penalise those who drop litter. On that basis, and in a positive sense, I recommend that we close the petition in line with rule 15.7 of standing orders.

Cabinet secretary, can you update us on the short and long-term investment plans for the NHS estate?

GPs have complained to me about working out of repurposed cupboards and about patients having to use a car park as a waiting room. Will you update us on the capital funding for primary care infrastructure? What are your thoughts on the creation of not just new GP practices but community hubs that have a GP practice, links to the third sector, pharmacy services and post office and banking facilities, and can operate as a one-stop shop?

Previously, as part of our work in this area, we have heard from experts on the use of technology to make the NHS more productive in various ways, from assisting diagnosis to, as we heard earlier, booking appointments—I think that the only time that I use the phone these days is for calling the GP; everything else is online or is accessed through apps.

Technology can also assist GPs by capturing and triaging patient data, as well as alleviating issues relating to delayed discharge. I have had patients contact me who were all good to go home but, because the medication was not ready, they had to stay in hospital a further night, which stopped someone else from using that bed.

We have active solutions in the artificial intelligence sector. How comfortable are you with the current use of technology? Do you have any plans for the future in that regard?

I agree with Mr Ewing’s point. In addition, it would be useful to get an update from the Scottish Government on how it is monitoring local authorities regarding their interaction with affected residents. For example, in Aberdeen, there are regular updates and newsletters available to the public. However, such interaction varies from local authority to local authority. In my view, the Scottish Government should be monitoring the situation and perhaps sharing best practice. I hope that that is being done. I do not know whether that is a role for the Government or for the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, but it should certainly be done. I would appreciate an update from the Scottish Government on that.

I think that we should close the petition under rule 15.7 of standing orders, on the basis that, as Mr Ewing and Mr Russell have highlighted, such a move would require funding. Moreover, the Scottish Government has reiterated that there is no plan to modify the current franchising process.

In closing the petition, we should do two things. First, we should write to the net zero committee—it is helpful that its convener is present today.

I understand the connectivity difficulties, particularly in rural areas but even in urban ones, and I appreciate that the petitioner must be frustrated by them. Ultimately, however, and with a heavy heart, I think that we should close the petition under rule 15.7 of standing orders on the basis that the Scottish Government has no plan to develop a distinct digital connectivity plan for the Highlands and Islands. It will publish a new Highlands and Islands plan this year—any month now—that will integrate digital connectivity with other key priorities, and it will also publish a refreshed digital strategy that will take connectivity priorities into account.