Seòmar agus comataidhean

The first thing to say is that there is my personal view and there is the view of the corporate body. The corporate body does not have an executive function in this regard. We are there to implement the will of Parliament as expressed. I noticed a suggestion from the Deputy First Minister that the corporate body could have a series of tests by which the establishment of a commissioner would be judged. That is not our responsibility. We in the corporate body do not have a party-political function. It is the will of Parliament to express whether it wants a commissioner and our responsibility is to facilitate that commissioner.

Professor Alan Page made a point about the complete volte face of the Government that is directly relevant to what you say. In 2008, I served on the committee that was established at the Government’s instigation to rationalise the number of commissioners that we had. That was difficult because, once the recommendations that we made to rationalise commissioners—with all the support of colleagues as we did it—became public, the people who saw that their commissioner might be rationalised away started campaigns with MSPs, who then got cold feet about the idea of rationalising commissioners. The problem is that, once the commissioners are there, they are difficult to walk back from.

The Scottish Government now seems keen on the establishment of commissioners as an instrument of policy. Whatever has changed, the Parliament has never had an architecture by which it and MSPs independently judge whether the establishment of a commissioner is a good thing. It is simply a proposal—for example, in a member’s bill—that goes through the relevant committee without more general and rounded consideration of whether it adds to or hinders the overall architecture. If the Government is going to be keener on that, rather than unenthusiastic, Parliament has to consider whether it should set up the architecture by which such proposals are judged, before it even gets to the discussion in committee of what the individual’s particular powers might or might not be.

In that sense, we have to be a bit keener on saying no to some things. David McGill always tells me that I am in danger of exaggerating these things but, wearing my finance hat, I think that it is about 12 per cent of our budget now.

That would not necessarily follow. There is some sympathy for the suggestion that you raise from within the current architecture of commissioners, who are concerned that clear lines of responsibility and authority are potentially being diluted by having additional advocacy commissioners. Where does the human rights commissioner sit within that structure? Could the approach that you suggest have been a better way forward?

I go back to my earlier point about architecture and how these things are established. That comes about because an organisation engages the support of an MSP, who makes a proposal for a bill to create a commissioner, but any suggestion that that commissioner might fit within an existing structure is not really something that you can create a bill for—it does not fit our current structural arrangements.

Parliament has to get that right first, and then judge how to go forward. We may well go from royal commission, to summit, conference, tsar and commissioner and end up with all of us wanting a rapporteur for our particular cause. I do not know what will happen, but it would be reassuring if the architecture around that were more robust.

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.

PE2079, which was lodged by Martin James Keatings, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to introduce primary legislation to provide exemptions from paying medical facility parking charges and to create a new classification of parking badge for care givers. The SPICe briefing provides information on existing eligibility criteria for the blue badge scheme, noting that it applies primarily to on-street parking.

In responding to the petition, the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care notes the decision to abolish car parking charges at all car parks that are owned by the national health service. It is also noted that responsibility for parking policy beyond NHS facilities rests with local authorities and it is up to them to decide how much to charge for parking and whether any exemptions should apply. These were changes of some long-standing practice. The cabinet secretary also recognises the huge contribution that is made by carers and he says that, through implementation of the national carers strategy, the Scottish Government aims to drive forward long-term changes to improve the lives of unpaid carers.

We have also received a submission from the petitioner in which he responds to the cabinet secretary. He highlights that carers perform tasks in the absence of the disabled person whom they support yet, in such circumstances, they are unable to make use of a blue badge. He suggests that the introduction of a carers badge scheme would be a tangible demonstration of support for the role that carers play while also helping to address the financial impact that parking charges have on carers, some of whom are, in fact, simply volunteers.

Do members have any comments or suggestions for action?

We thank the petitioner for raising this fresh issue with us. We note the number of signatures that the petition has attracted. We will seek to take the issue further forward.

I think that, on this occasion, the petitioner has had some success, in that they achieved their end result.

We can do that if members are happy with that. You asked whether the Government would consider afresh the 67 per cent reduction in funding. We could also ask the Government what it thinks the consequences of such a reduction would be for the industry and communities.

Given what you have said, I wonder whether we might also draw the petition to the attention of the Finance and Public Administration Committee, which is currently undertaking a formal inquiry into office-holders, as part of which it is looking at the whole sweep of the office-holding positions. I know that the corporate body is due to give evidence to that committee, and I have previously—on behalf of the corporate body—raised issues of concern that the corporate body has had when I have presented the Parliament’s budget to the Finance and Public Administration Committee. It might be useful for that committee to be aware that the petition exists and that the ombudsman herself is keen on a review, although the Government does not seem minded to pursue one.

Are members content that we take that approach?

Members indicated agreement.