Chamber and committees

Obviously, you were not involved in the discussion about the change of plea or anything like that.

That brings us to our final petition this morning, which is PE1938. It has been lodged by Carlie Power and calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to introduce mandatory microchipping of cats in Scotland and to assess the effectiveness of current microchip scanning processes. We are joined by the Parliament’s most famous cat owner, Christine Grahame MSP. Welcome.

The Scottish Government has indicated that it is working alongside the other UK Administrations on animal welfare issues, including consideration of the microchipping of cats. It advises that officials are following Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs proposals in the area and will give full consideration to the recent consultation results and any proposed legislation.

The petitioner welcomes the Scottish Government’s response and states that she is satisfied that the current approach will adequately address the issue of mandatory microchipping. She raises the issue of mandatory scanning and highlights that standards have been falling below best practice. The petitioner cites, as a potential reason for falling standards, a lack of understanding of and training in the use of scanning equipment, and she says that no official guidance on the issue is in place for councils.

The SPICe briefing that we have received highlights the UK Government’s consultation, which addressed scanning. Generally, it found broad support for improvements to the process but raised positive and negative impacts that might arise from compulsory microchipping. I think that it is quite likely that the Scottish Government will, having indicated that it is looking closely at the consultation in relation to microchipping and scanning, be inclined to follow whatever final course the UK Government chooses on this issue.

Christine Grahame, is there anything that you would like to say in relation to the petition?

I am sympathetic, as is the corporate body, to the particular situation in which the member has found himself. We understand, however, that it is the only time that such an experience has been faced by a member. Therefore, there is not a view in the corporate body at the moment that a much wider review of the scheme is needed as a consequence. However, as I said earlier, there is the opportunity for an exceptional application to be made to the corporate body, where that is felt to be appropriate.

I begin by acknowledging that I understand the particular circumstance that Brian Whittle has been facing as an MSP, and the discussions that he has had with me and the corporate body, which remain on-going.

In general terms, the corporate body reviews the reimbursement of members’ expenses scheme in each parliamentary session to ensure that it remains fit for purpose. We last reviewed the scheme in 2019 and revisions to it were introduced at the beginning of this session. The corporate body also has a legal advice scheme for members, which is separate from the members’ expenses scheme. It was last reviewed in 2016.

Neither review highlighted any need for a change to the underlying principles or criteria for access to legal services. The operation of both schemes has demonstrated that their scope is sufficient to address the needs of a large majority of members, although we understand and accept that particular circumstances can arise in which the corporate body scheme does not meet needs. There are opportunities for members to consider one-off applications to the corporate body in those circumstances.

We return to where we began, to an extent, because Mr Stewart is keen to pursue some of the issues that relate to the recommendations and press a little further.

We will do that at the appropriate time, to test the water. I will dabble my toes in the waters of that statement and will see what response I get, at the appropriate time.

I understand, having participated in the work of the parliamentary commission and in other events, that it is easy to set up a timeline. We set up timelines using parliamentary structures because we anticipate, in a sense, what we might be about to hear, and we therefore think that we can benchmark when the next milestone will be. However, in the evidence that you are hearing, you will hear fresh thoughts, challenges and ideas that might contradict views that people have held before. As you are reflecting, do you have in your mind an idea of when the Government will be able to indicate formally what its thoughts on the report are?

I thank the minister, Mr Kinnaird and Mr Rafferty for joining us this morning, and I thank Brian Whittle, too, for his participation.

Colleagues, are we content to consider the evidence that we have heard this morning at a future meeting of the committee?

Members indicated agreement.

Hold on a second, Mr Whittle—what has overtaken Whitelee? It used to be the biggest.

Thank you. I wonder whether we might also write to some of the bodies that represent victims and survivors, just to call in aid to the argument and to get some understanding of their views on widening the eligibility criteria. They must be aware of the particular circumstances of the groups that are falling through the net, and might be able to identify others that they would say are in a similar situation. Do we agree to write to those bodies, together with the suggestions that have already been made?

Members indicated agreement.

Thank you. It is an important petition; we will keep it open and see what progress we can make.

I will suspend the meeting briefly. The minister is now with us, so we will be able to discuss our final continued petition in a moment.