Seòmar agus comataidhean

That is helpful. Thank you for the suggestion. Having seen that concern, I was not sure where we would write to to resolve it, but that is a good suggestion.

Are members of the committee content to proceed on the basis of those recommendations?

Members indicated agreement.

PE1938, lodged by Carlie Power, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to introduce the mandatory microchipping of cats in Scotland and to assess the effectiveness of current microchip-scanning processes.

The Scottish Animal Welfare Commission has informed the committee that microchipping domestic cats has been identified in its recent work programme as an issue to potentially focus on in the medium term. The Scottish Government has stated that it does not consider that microchipping or the scanning of microchips should be made compulsory for cats at this time. The recent submission raises concerns shared with UK counterparts that it could create an enforcement role for veterinary surgeons or result in pet owners avoiding taking their cat to receive medical attention if the animal is stolen or unchipped.

The petitioner has provided two further written submissions to the committee. She notes that owners of 71 per cent of cats have accepted the recommendation on voluntarily microchipping cats but that that statistic brought the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to the conclusion that advisory action is not enough. She raises concerns about road traffic accidents that result in euthanasia for minor injuries because locating the cat owner had not been possible. It is highlighted that waste departments often take a role in the disposal of cat remains but do not always have access to a microchip scanner or an understanding of the scanning process.

Christine Grahame MSP, owner of Mr Smokey, has provided a written submission as she is unable to attend the meeting this morning. Her submission states that compulsory microchipping would enable negligent cat owners to be more easily identified and help to avoid ownership disputes. Her submission concludes by highlighting the fact that the number of unchipped cats in Scotland is higher than the UK average.

We have also received a late submission from Cats Protection that was circulated to members for consideration.

In the light of the Animal Welfare Commission’s identifying this as a potential medium-term issue and the other evidence that we have received, including Christine Grahame’s submission, do members have any comments?

PE1990, lodged by Jordon Anderson, calls on the Scottish Government to request the introduction of a monthly chamber session to allow young people to put questions to the First Minister and her—or, I suppose, in due course, his—Cabinet. The petitioner states that children and young people should not have to hide behind a third-party organisation to be heard.

The SPICe briefing provides details of the working in partnership agreement between the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Youth Parliament. That agreement includes a commitment from the Scottish Parliament to host a sitting of the Scottish Youth Parliament every two years, although the last such sitting was in 2018 and, regrettably, a sitting that was scheduled to take place in 2022 fell on the same weekend as the death of Her Majesty the Queen, which led to its postponement. The next session is scheduled for 2024.

The Scottish Government’s response outlines ways in which children and young people are engaged with, including an annual meeting with Cabinet ministers.

Do members have any comments or suggestions for action?

I am mindful that we are doing our own inquiry into deliberative democracy and citizen engagement. I am also aware that there is a Children’s Parliament and a Youth Parliament, which are elected bodies for which anybody who is eligible can stand. I feel that there are opportunities there. I wonder whether the committee, as part of our work, could consider whether, rather than the Youth Parliament just sitting in Holyrood every second year, something more formal, by way of a joint session, could take place between members of the Scottish Parliament and members of the Scottish Youth Parliament and be of benefit.

We are at an early stage. What further considerations or suggestions might colleagues have?

I will turn to the clerks: have we written to the Scottish Youth Parliament and the Children’s Parliament in relation to our inquiry into deliberative democracy, and have we received any submissions from them?

Right. Have they come forward with any recommendations to us for anything that we might want to consider doing?

That concludes our public meeting. Thank you all. We meet again on 22 March. We will now consider item 4 in private.

Next is PE1935, which is not the year in which an infringement was last upheld, just the number of the petition. Lodged by Dillon Crawford, it calls on the Scottish Government to create an independent committee outside the Parliament to judge whether ministers have broken the Scottish ministerial code.

The committee, at our last consideration, agreed to request a Scottish Parliament Information Centre briefing on the ministerial code equivalents in the partner nations: England, Wales and Northern Ireland. The SPICe briefing provides detail of the processes followed across the UK. In Scotland, the First Minister is the only MSP who assesses and decides action for a breach of the ministerial code.

All MSPs, including ministers, are expected to abide by the “Code of Conduct for Members of the Scottish Parliament”. The briefing states that that is consistent with arrangements at a UK level and in the other devolved nations, where there are separate codes of conduct for members of the Government and members of the respective legislatures.

While there are similarities, the briefing notes that there are differences between Governments in how alleged breaches of the relevant ministerial code are dealt with, the status of the independent advisers and the sanctions available to the Prime Minister or the First Minister in relation to breaches of the relevant ministerial code. Have members any comments or suggestions for action?

Are we content to do that? These are vulnerable communities, and it would be too easy for us to say, “Let’s just close the petition”. We should keep up what pressure we can to see what changes we can help to facilitate.

Members indicated agreement.

All right. I am happy to keep the petition open for us to take it into account in our consideration.

Are we content to write to key stakeholders to seek their views on the action called for in the petition in order to generate a bit of further information? Are you content for the clerks to give some consideration to who those stakeholders might be and who we might want to hear from? On that recommendation, we will write to a broader body of people, rather than us trying to second-guess who all the organisations are at the moment. Are we content to do that?

Members indicated agreement.

Yes. That is helpful, Mr Ewing. Let us face it: on numerous occasions during consideration of petitions in the past, the committee has received submissions in which it was suggested that there was already a route through which the aims of a petition could be realised, only for us to find, on investigation, that there were obstacles in place or that, in fact, the route was rarely exercised or understood. Given that that has been suggested to us as a remedy, it would be helpful to understand the extent to which it is one. I am happy to agree to that. Are we agreed?

Members indicated agreement.