Chamber and committees

There are two important areas there. It is difficult to be certain about the long-term requirement for the scrutiny of issues arising from Brexit. We have modelled that as best we can. David McGill will touch on that. Net zero is similar. We have a sustained action plan for that. I am not sure whether you are talking about scrutiny in relation to net zero or about our scrutiny of ourselves and what we are doing to achieve net zero. Michelle Hegarty will be able to expand on that in detail. David McGill can comment on the Brexit aspect.

Thank you, convener. Any time that I have presented before, that is what we have done and it is helpful to set out the main themes of the budget.

From a personal perspective, it always occurs to me that a vote in the House of Commons takes around 15 minutes and that we sometimes have 10 or 11 divisions in the Scottish Parliament, so we would be there for several hours if we were to follow that process.

I understand the frustrations that some members have experienced. Sometimes, the issues are to do with the robustness of the IT connection and network where the member is seeking to vote from. However, I still think that we have done a remarkable job in the time concerned. I might cheekily suggest that I have sometimes seen in the chat line—not so much in this parliamentary session, but maybe in the previous one—that some familiar faces have struggled to complete the voting process. I will say no more than that.

We recognise that what might have been thought of as merely a temporary requirement is a requirement that we will have to meet for the foreseeable future. As was said in the debate last week, changes in the longer-term working of the Parliament that might never have been contemplated at all now seem to be potentially more palatable and beneficial than they might have seemed if we discussed them in an abstract way prior to the pandemic.

That requires us, therefore, to continue to invest in our technology to ensure that it is robust. I assure the committee that we are aware of the difficulties that members have had and that we are working all the time to improve the technology. I do not think, however, that we will ever be in an environment that is 100 per cent secure from any kind of failing, and no other Parliament is in that position either.

I turn to David McGill.

The next petition, PE1863, which was lodged by Michael Campbell, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to provide mandatory annual cancer blood tests to people from the age of 55. When the petition was previously considered on 1 September, we agreed that we would write to various stakeholders to ask for their view on the petition. Those stakeholders included the United Kingdom National Screening Committee, which is the independent scientific advisory body that advises ministers on matters of population screening, including any proposal to consider a single blood test to detect cancers. The UK National Screening Committee’s submission notes that it

“has not looked at the evidence to screen for cancers using a single blood test.”

However, its call for topics to consider runs from September to December each year.

Cancer Research UK notes that there are currently no blood tests that can

“reliably detect the early signs of cancer in people without symptoms”,

and it suggests that a “lot more research” would be required before such a test could be used in cancer screening. Cancer Research UK also provides information about a large screening trial on a single blood test, which it believes will be “crucial” in answering whether such a test can find cancer, whether it can do so at an earlier stage and whether it can avoid causing undue levels of harm. Cancer Research UK concludes:

“Regrettably we cannot endorse this petition, but we hope that it will not be too much longer before a general cancer blood test suitable for use in cancer screening becomes available.”

It looks as though the petitioner’s aims might be feasible at a later date, but we cannot find any advisory body that wishes to pursue the matter at the moment. On the basis that there is no such test at this time, I am minded to suggest to colleagues that we close the petition under rule 15.7. In doing so, we could say to the petitioner that there is an expectation and a hope that such a test might be possible in the not-too-distant future. We could also write to those in the national health service who are running the Galleri trial, to see what information they have for us to consider.

The final continued petition is PE1875, which was lodged by Jordon Anderson and calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to order a public inquiry into the actions of the Scottish Qualifications Authority during the academic years 2019-20 and 2020-2021.

We last considered the petition at our meeting on 22 September 2021, when we decided to write to the Scottish Government to clarify whether the remit of the public inquiry into Covid-19 will include consideration of the SQA’s actions. The Scottish Government has now responded. It states that there was public engagement earlier this year on a draft aims and principles paper for the inquiry. That will help to inform the terms of reference for the inquiry, which will be agreed between ministers and the inquiry’s chair, once they have been appointed. The Scottish Government concludes by saying that

“decisions about the scope of this Scottish public inquiry are yet to be taken”

and that

“this includes matters raised in this petition.”

It therefore makes sense to leave the petition open until we have some clarification of whether the inquiry will take into account SQA review as part of its work. We will keep it open on that basis.

Members indicated agreement.

It is that aspect of the petition that I think we would seek to explore, given that the legal position with regard to the procurator fiscal having to seek permissions and so on is not likely to proceed.

I would like to write to those organisations on the basis that it appears that the anomaly exists. We would be interested in their confirming that that is the case and what they see as the potential risk to justice arising from that. We could add the Faculty of Advocates and the Scottish Law Commission to the list of organisations that we will write to.

Are there any other comments?

Yes. Although the word “estrangement” sounds quite formal and technical, it is perhaps not legal. Therefore, it could mean different things to different people. It would be useful to obtain evidence on that.

That concludes our consideration of new and continued petitions. Our next meeting is on Wednesday 15 December, and I thank our guest or substitute colleague Marie McNair for attending.

The next petition is PE1907, which has been lodged by Claire Beats. It calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to provide funded early learning and childcare for all two-year-olds and remove eligibility criteria for access to services. The petitioner notes that

“availability of early learning and childcare funding for 2-year-old children depends on certain eligibility criteria, such as their parents being in receipt of benefits or being vulnerable.”

As an early years practitioner, the petitioner suggests that

“lockdown babies”,

in particular,

“have suffered from lack of play experiences, meeting peers, and opportunities that other children have always had.”

She suggests that funded early learning and childcare for all two-year-olds

“will greatly increase their potential”,

as well as helping parents who may be struggling financially as a result of the pandemic.

As with all new petitions, we sought the views of the Scottish Government. It suggested that current eligibility criteria for funded early learning and childcare is targeted towards those children who would benefit from it most. It also pointed out that local authorities have a discretionary power to offer funded places to a wider range of children, depending on individual need. The Scottish Government concluded by highlighting that, in this year’s programme for government, it has committed to expanding an early learning offer to all one and two-year-olds, starting in this parliamentary session with those from low-income families.

Do colleagues have any comments or suggestions? Are we minded to write to stakeholders to understand their views? Early Years Scotland, the National Day Nurseries Association, Parenting Across Scotland and COSLA are the obvious ones that come to mind. Do we agree to write to them?

Members indicated agreement.