Seòmar agus comataidhean

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.

PE1937, lodged by Gillian Lamarra, urges the Scottish Government to implement the option across all schools for primary school children to wear their physical education kit to school on the days when they have PE.

At our meeting on 28 September 2022, we agreed to write to the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and the Children and Young People’s Commissioner to seek their views on the action called for in the petition. I had not realised that it was as long ago as that; it seems fresher in my mind. In response, the commissioner set out their view that primary schools should adopt a flexible approach to policies on changing for PE classes. The commissioner’s response also highlights long-standing concerns about other parts of the learning estate, such as school toilets. The response also suggests that, although different PE changing practices among primary schools may be justified, the Scottish Government should explore whether national guidance is required to help create some degree of consistency.

We have also received a response from COSLA that highlights that extensive work is under way across councils and schools to support the vision of a Scotland where children’s human rights are embedded in all aspects of society and public services. COSLA goes on to state that local government believes that it would not be appropriate for the important matters raised in the petition to be subject to national-level policy or guidance, with schools best placed to determine the design and delivery of policy around wearing PE kits.

I imagine that the school estate across Scotland will be hugely varied, so some schools will find it easy to make different arrangements, while others will probably have to plan over a longer period to make such arrangements possible.

Colleagues, in the light of the submissions that we have received, what do you suggest would be an appropriate way forward?

Good morning, everybody, and welcome to the fourth meeting of the Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee in 2023. I thank my colleague David Torrance for convening the previous meeting, when I was, unfortunately, off ill.

Our agenda is largely to consider seven continued petitions and five new petitions. We will not take any external evidence.

Our first item of business is to agree to take item 4 in private. Are we content to do that?

Members indicated agreement.

Item 2 is consideration of continued petitions, the first of which is PE1867, lodged by Scott Macmillan and calling on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to encourage the Scottish Qualifications Authority to establish a national qualification in British Sign Language at Scottish credit and qualifications framework level 2.

A BSL interpretation of our discussion will be on the Parliament’s BSL channel following today’s meeting.

We last considered the petition in November 2022, when we agreed to write to the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills to seek an update on the development of the next BSL plan and an exploration of how BSL national qualifications might be developed. We have received a response from the cabinet secretary that suggests that the Scottish Government will undertake engagement and consultation work to inform the priorities of the BSL national plan for 2023.

The cabinet secretary has also provided details on BSL awards currently available at SCQF levels 3 to 6. While delivery of those awards is still at an early stage, the cabinet secretary has indicated that uptake is increasing. The cabinet secretary goes on to state that, while the Scottish Government shares the petitioner’s vision for BSL to be more widely taught in schools, having qualifications in place does not necessarily lead to the language being offered at level 2 by schools and it remains the choice of schools to decide which languages to teach. The Scottish Government, therefore, does not believe that the steps sought by the petitioner are necessarily sufficient to support an increased take-up of BSL.

We have considered the petition on a number of occasions. Do colleagues have any suggestions in light of the cabinet secretary’s letter and her commitment to consult further on the 2023 plan?

The fact that the petitioner is satisfied with the progress and the response received gives weight to that recommendation. Are we agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

We thank the petitioner for raising the issue with us. As with all petitions that are closed, if, in due course, the petitioner feels that the commitments or evidence that we have received do not lead to a satisfactory outcome, they are entitled to bring the issue back by way of a fresh petition after 12 months.