Seòmar agus comataidhean

That is probably the position that we have to adopt, although do colleagues, like me, sometimes wonder what the safety assessments actually are or amount to? What do they do to establish that an issue is not one of concern? Is it some form of monitoring?

Unfortunately from the petitioner’s perspective, if the Scottish Government’s view is that?that is the course of action that it is going to follow, there is really nothing that the committee can do but accept that it is an issue that will continue to command a degree of public attention and which will remain the subject of further discussion. For the moment, are colleagues content to follow Mr Torrance’s recommendation?

Members indicated agreement.

PE2145, lodged by Jillian Brown, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to make it compulsory for cats and kittens to be microchipped. The Scottish Government’s “Code of Practice for the Welfare of Cats” recommends that all responsible cat owners consider microchipping their pets as the best way of ensuring that they can be reunited with their rightful owners.

The Scottish Animal Welfare Commission has published a report on responsible ownership and care of cats, recommending that Scottish ministers

“introduce legislation to require the compulsory microchipping and registration of owned cats”.

The Scottish Government’s response to the petition states that it is carefully considering the recommendations in that report and will engage with stakeholders ahead of any decision being made on what future direction the Government might recommend.

The committee has received a written submission from Cats Protection, highlighting the public support for compulsory microchipping in England, which is now in force, and calling for its introduction in Scotland.

Do we have any idea of how many cats there are? I doubt it. My goodness, it could be quite a commitment.

Does anybody else have any observations or reflections?

PE2148 is on improving the transition from child and adolescent mental health services to adult mental health services. Colleagues will be aware that we are already considering a petition asking for a complete review of mental health services, but this petition is quite a focused ask in that wider field. Lodged by Heather Stitt, it calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to improve the transition from CAMHS to adult mental health services by ensuring that national referral guidelines and criteria are adhered to.

The SPICe briefing provides an overview of the work that the Scottish Government has undertaken on transitions. Research in 2016-17 highlighted the need for improvements to training resources, service co-ordination, information access and proactive outreach to vulnerable individuals with additional support needs.

The Minister for Social Care, Mental Wellbeing and Sport’s submission states that the Scottish Government expects health boards to consider and plan for transitions in services and care. The submission also highlights the 2020 service specification, which sets out an expectation that the transition care planning guidance will be implemented and that CAMHS will have protocols in place to ensure robust transitions. Moreover, the minister’s response highlights the transition care plan guidance and template, which were developed with the Scottish Youth Parliament.

Our colleague Sarah Boyack MSP wished to join us this morning, but she is unable to do so. Instead, we have received a written submission from her, which questions how the Scottish Government monitors adherence to the guidelines and service standards. Ms Boyack states that, without appropriate support or treatment, there is a risk that some young people will be unable to work or contribute to their communities, and she concludes by saying that young people and their families should not feel that they have been abandoned or left in limbo.

Do colleagues have any suggestions?

There is a recommendation from Mr Choudhury to keep the petition open and to explore two specific lines of inquiry. Are colleagues content with Mr Choudhury’s suggestions?

Members indicated agreement.

PE2088, lodged by Emma Keyes, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to help to eliminate cervical cancer in Scotland for women and those with a cervix by introducing at-home human papillomavirus self-sampling to enhance the smear testing programme, helping to increase the uptake and accessibility of smear testing.

We last considered the petition at our meeting on 12 June 2024, when we agreed to write to the UK National Screening Committee and the Scottish Government. The response from the NSC highlights evidence on the use of HPV self-sampling within the NHS cervical screening programme, which it reviewed in 2019. Back then, the NSC recognised the value of self-sampling, but it indicated that further work was required to ensure its feasibility in the existing screening programme. Such work is under way, and the NSC has pointed to a variety of projects in the area which, once completed, will inform future recommendations to ministers across the UK.

The Scottish Government’s response states that, beyond engagement with the NSC on self-sampling, it continues to explore alternatives to increase the uptake of the cervical screening programme, including the improved use of digital technology, as well as more personalised communications with eligible participants. In light of that, do members have any comments or suggestions for action?

No. Are we agreed at this stage?

Members indicated agreement.

Good morning, and welcome to the ninth meeting in 2025 of the Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee.

Our first agenda item is the usual dry business of agreeing whether to take in private agenda items 4, 5 and 6, which are on consideration of a draft report on the participation blueprint, our approach to the end of the parliamentary session, and our annual report. Do we agree to take those items in private?

Members indicated agreement.

PE2093, lodged by Benjamin Harrop, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to review and update the Scottish ministerial code to: put the code under statute; enable independent advisers to initiate investigations, and if the First Minister decides to go against the independent adviser’s advice, they should make a statement to Parliament; set out the sanctions for breaches other than misleading Parliament; allow independent advisers to make recommendations for changes to the code; rename the independent adviser position to make it clear that there is no judicial involvement; and require ministers to make a public oath or commitment to abide by the code.

We last considered the petition at our meeting on 26 June 2024, when we agreed to write to the First Minister. The committee’s letter particularly sought clarification on what consideration the First Minister had given to updating the ministerial code since taking office, and it asked him to set out the process for appointing independent advisers on the ministerial code, including whether any consideration was given to how long they should remain in post.

The First Minister’s initial response confirmed his intention to publish an updated edition of the ministerial code, and it indicated that the length of service of independent advisers on the code was a matter that is agreed between the First Minister and the individual advisers.

The most recent correspondence from the First Minister confirms the publication of an updated ministerial code, following the appointment of three new independent advisers. The First Minister’s response states that, as per the updated code, those advisers can begin investigations into alleged breaches of the code without a referral from him, and that when a breach is established, the advisers can recommend appropriate sanctions.

The petitioner’s response welcomes the changes that enable independent advisers to initiate investigations and to recommend sanctions and changes to the code, but highlights concerns that the code has not been put under statute and that there is no requirement on ministers to make a public commitment to abide by it. The petitioner also raises concerns that the designation of advisers as independent may cause confusion, with people believing that “independent” suggests a judicial role. However, I feel that a certain amount of progress—some might say that it is unexpected—has been made on the substance of the petition.

Do colleagues have any suggestions for action?

PE2108, lodged by Andrew Muir, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to require medical professionals to obtain a second medical opinion before a person is detained under the Mental Health (Care and Treatment) (Scotland) Act 2003. The petition was last considered on 9 October 2024.

In its response to the committee, the Scottish Government states that it is confident that one medical opinion is sufficient for the granting of a short-term detention certificate, because of the additional safeguards and patients’ rights that are provided for in the 2003 act.

The petitioner and his wife, Clair Muir, have provided a joint written submission, which details Mrs Muir’s personal experience of being under a short-term detention certificate. The petitioner explains that, during Mrs Muir’s treatment, further investigation by a new responsible medical officer resulted in that treatment being brought to a conclusion. He believes that their experience would have been better had a second medical opinion been available before detention started.

The issues in the petition are familiar to many of us, and the petitioners have drawn our attention to them on a number of occasions. Given the Scottish Government’s response, what might we do now?