Seòmar agus comataidhean

Our next petition is PE1964, which was lodged by Accountability Scotland. It calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to set up an independent review of the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman in order to investigate complaints made against the SPSO, to assess the quality of its work and decisions, and to establish whether the current legislation governing the SPSO is fit for purpose.

We have considered the petition before; colleagues may remember the submissions. The petitioner has brought to our attention the fact that the ombudsman stated her support for a review of the legislation governing the SPSO during the Local Government, Housing and Planning Committee’s scrutiny of the SPSO’s annual report. Her view is that the current legislation is not

“as adaptable as it should be, for the different ways of delivering services and making complaints.”—[Official Report, Local Government, Housing and Planning Committee, 5 December 2023; c 16.]

It is worth noting that while the ombudsman has stated her support for a review of the legislation, the petitioner is also calling for an investigation into complaints made against the SPSO and an assessment of the quality of its work. From different starting positions, the ombudsman and the petitioner are seeking such a review.

We are aware, and it is important to note, that the SPSO’s functions are independent of the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body—which met the ombudsman recently—ministers and MSPs to ensure that there is no interference in the decisions that are made.

We are in the slightly unusual position that there has never been a review of the ombudsman. In previous evidence, there was an expectation that a review would take place at some point of the way in which the arrangements are structured. The Government seems reluctant to undertake the review that the petitioner would like, but the ombudsman herself is quite open to the idea that a review should take place.

I wonder whether Mr Torrance has a burning suggestion for us.

I am happy to say to the petitioner that we will not bury the petition but will make efforts to keep it alive. We will wait to hear what the responses to our inquiries are.

Thank you, Mr Sweeney. Do colleagues have any comments?

I think that it would be perfectly in order for us to write to the Scottish Government or Transport Scotland.

We should also highlight that a number of these people are volunteers and that parking charges represent a considerable additional burden. That maybe distinguishes them from other groups in society that request exemptions, many of whom are in completely different circumstances. I think that, in this instance, the petitioner’s ask is worth pursuing. Are we agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

Do you want me to formally record that as the recommendation, Mr Choudhury? Is a committee visit to Venice part of your consideration?

In the first instance, we might keep the petition open, as Mr Choudhury suggests, and ask Creative Scotland, if the review is concluding, for an update on its conclusions and the consequences for Scotland’s future participation in 2025, 2026 and 2027. I think that that would be reasonable.

We could certainly draw the First Minister’s attention to the fact that we have received a petition following up on the issues that were raised with the previous First Minister at FMQs. Do you know the date?

The petition has achieved nominal success, but we want that to be followed by substantive success.

Do members agree to keep the petition open and to make the inquiries that Mr Choudhury suggested?

Members indicated agreement.

PE2080, which was lodged by Louise McKendrick, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to implement screening for people with, or at risk of, Li-Fraumeni syndrome due to TP53 mutation, in line with the guidelines recommended by the UK Cancer Genetics Group. LFS, as it is known, is rare, with researchers estimating that a few thousand people in the UK have it. The UK Cancer Genetics Group guidelines recommend regular screening for people with LFS.

The SPICe briefing that we have received notes that the guidelines that are cited by the petitioner do not actually recommend routine cancer screening for those who are identified as being at risk of having the TP53 gene mutation that causes LFS. Instead, the guidelines recommend that they be offered appropriate counselling and support and encouraged to consider whether they want to be tested for the TP53 gene variant.

The Scottish Government’s response to the petition states:

“The UK Cancer Genetics Group ... guidelines are endorsed and supported by clinical genetics teams ... across Scotland.”

However, it adds:

“We are aware of variation in how these guidelines are implemented across ... health boards in Scotland and of acute demand for MRI procedures in particular.”

The Government is

“considering how to better signpost management guidelines and ... improve the consistency in implementation”.

In view of the Government’s position and the UK Cancer Genetics Group guidelines, do members have comments or suggestions for action?

Thank you very much. Are we content with the suggestions that have been made?

Members indicated agreement.