Seòmar agus comataidhean

I am not sure whether you want me to move it at the beginning, but—

There are just so many of them.

I remind Rachael Hamilton that Jackson Carlaw supported my amendment. That is cross-party consideration; we considered the issue and came together on it, so it is unfair to say that there has not been cross-party consideration, certainly on my amendment.

Forgive me—you will know this if you were listening to the early part of our proceedings—but amendment 39, which has been agreed to by the committee, is on additional guidance, advice and support for young applicants prior to their making an application. That amendment sets out that the applicant must confirm to the registrar general that they have

“discussed the implications for the applicant of obtaining a gender recognition certificate with an individual who—

(a) has a role which involves giving guidance, advice or support to young people”.

Therefore, that is there at the beginning.

I thought you might have done.

Convener, I think that I will be in touch with Mrs Carlaw on that one.

Could the committee get in touch with the Scottish Animal Welfare Commission to see whether it has a more specific timetable? What is in your briefing suggests that it is rather casual in what it is saying just now.

Yes. I would like to add a bit, because there is a distinction to be made from dogs being microchipped, which happens for a variety of reasons—it is compulsory and makes it easier to impose dog control notices and so on. Cats are a different kettle of fish. I do not know why I mention fish with cats, but there we are. The issues are welfare of cats and responsible ownership.

If I can, I will briefly tell you a very short story, convener. Many years ago, my son went out in the garden and found a cat in the pouring rain under the bushes. We had two cats of our own at the time, and we brought it in. We kept it safe overnight, but it was obvious that the cat was very ill. We took it to the vet, who said that it was a very old cat and that it had kidney failure and was dying. My son and I burst into tears, so the vet asked, “How long have you known the cat?” We said, “Twenty-four hours.” It did not matter.

The point of the story is that the owner would never have known what happened. Cats often disappear to die. My own cat did that; it went down into the garden and I found it later. They go away from the house.

From the point of view of an owner, if a cat is injured, killed on the road or just disappears to die quietly away from its normal place, which is natural for a cat, it is very upsetting for the cat owner to never know what happened.

It is the same when cats adopt another household, which has been known to happen. They just wander off and decide, “The food’s better here; I think I’ll stay.” Again, if they were microchipped, at least the owner would know where they had gone.

I am not obsessed with cats—let me make that plain—but I think that the issue is terribly important. I commend the various cat charities. If you get a rescue cat like Mr Smokey—who is very famous, of course—the Scottish Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals charges you to have the cat neutered, which they usually are not, and to have the cat microchipped. It is a welfare issue and it is about responsible ownership.

From the Government’s response, I see that the Scottish Animal Welfare Commission says in its July 2021 work plan that

“potential areas of work in the medium term”

are

“to consider welfare aspects of microchipping domestic cats, compulsory neutering of cats and outdoor cat controls”

and so on. It seems to me that that is a light touch in respect of potential areas to consider. I ask the committee to consider writing to the Scottish Animal Welfare Commission to see whether it proposes anything more solid. I appreciate the other matters that the convener raised, about scanning and so on.

As I understand it, there should be no cost to the public purse. If an animal is taken to the vets and it is not known whose it is, it could be scanned and the owner found. The main thing would be that owners would have to bring details for the microchip up to date if they were to move.

Finally, if you have a cat flap—I am not advertising any manufactured devices—that identifies microchips, your cat can get in and out of the house and no other cats can come in. Mr Smokey has that protection from any invaders: only he can get in and out using the cat flap, and I am sure that he is very happy with that.

There is a range of things that I would like to see being made compulsory. Every time you talk about cats, people smile at you, but many of us love the wee devils. Thank you.

Let me put it on the line that I support advocacy services for children. However, that is not the issue. The petition is very narrow. As you have already suggested, convener, we have non-statutory child-advocacy services in court proceedings in relation to contact and residence, but what you have not read out is that I came to the issue through a case—as many of us do—which broadened the whole issue. I hope that members will forgive me if they already know about this. I will obviously keep the case anonymous, but the experience of the intervention of such a child advocacy service caused devastation to the lives of two of my constituents.

The intervention began because of a series of unfounded allegations made against the man, but the advocacy service soon became the driver of events that multiplied allegations without their validity ever being investigated. As I know from practising as a family lawyer 20 years ago, once children have been alienated, it is practically impossible to undo.

What is the backing for that? My constituents went to proof. In her judgement, the sheriff set out in detail the systematic creation by the child advocacy service of an entirely false narrative in the minds of the children. That included practising emergency evacuation drills with them, as if the father might attack them. The service also refused to accept its role in perpetuating and amplifying the falsehoods.

There may not be many cases, but one case is one too many. I note what the convener said about the response by the minister, Ash Denham. I see a reference to the Children’s Hearings (Scotland) Act 2011 (Children’s Advocacy Services) Regulations 2020, which came into force in November last year. Those regulations only set out requirements as to qualifications, training and fees. There is no requirement for regulation.

I also note the minister’s response, which you read out. She said that regulation would be difficult and would require primary legislation. I do not care about that. If something needs to be fixed, primary legislation is neither here nor there. The minister says that advocacy services

“are not only provided by organisations or persons acting in a professional capacity”—

one might call that a quasi-professional capacity—and that, in the event of regulation being implemented,

“consideration would need to be given as to how this would be enforced”

with persons supporting in the capacity of a relative. Relatives are a completely different species. They are not disinterested parties, and neither should they be, in any proceedings regarding children with whom they are connected. We are looking at non-statutory advocacy services, which are not currently regulated. My constituents did not see what had been said. They found out only by accident. By the time the stage of proof is reached, the damage is done. The comments by the sheriff are very telling.

This is a serious issue. You talked about how petitions have been used to move on the serious issue of mesh. I would like someone such as the cabinet secretary to answer to this. It can be fixed. Some people say that relatives cause an issue, but they do not. The constituent mentioned services. We do not talk about a relative providing services. Definition is all, in this case.

That is my position. You can see that it is heartfelt because I have been following this, with my constituents, for two years. I know the misery that it has brought to their lives and the impact that it has had on their children, with whom they now have no connection whatsoever, and probably never will have again. That should not happen.

I thank the committee.