Chamber and committees

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.

PE1962, on stopping motorhomes being parked overnight outwith formal campsites, caravan parks and aires, was lodged by Lynn and Darren Redfern. It calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to improve licensing enforcement on motorhomes to ensure that they are parked only in designated and regulated locations.

The Scottish Government’s recent submission states that the work of the camper van and motorhome working group is still under way and that no formal report has been submitted to the visitor management steering group. It was agreed that a formal report would be provided at the end of last year. I understand that that group has met and that that information is now on the Scottish Government’s website.

The petitioners have shared information about the prevalence of motorhomes being parked outwith campsites or aires and the associated issues. The information includes figures on roadside waste disposal, scorch marks and litter. The petitioners believe that, if the tourist levy is applied to campsites but not to motorhomes on roadsides, the number of people who opt to stay outwith formal sites will “increase significantly”. The submission also highlights the positive economic impact of the holiday park and campsite sector. Here we are in May 2024, going into the summer season, when I imagine that such issues will be at their most prevalent.

Do colleagues have any suggestions?

Our next petition is PE1975, by Roger Mullin, which calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to review and amend the law to prevent the use of strategic lawsuits against public participation, or SLAPPs, as they are known, which we have heard much about recently.

Members will recall that we took evidence on the petition from the Minister for Victims and Community Safety and that, when we did so, we were encouraged by the news that a consultation on SLAPPs would be progressed in the autumn. Therefore, with that information in mind, given that the Government is to pursue matters, do members have any comments or suggestions for action?

Are we content to do that?