Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee
Meeting date: Wednesday, June 29, 2022
Official Report 545KB pdf
Contents
- Attendance
- Continued Petitions
- New Petitions
New Petitions
Train Fares (PE1930)
Item 2 is consideration of new petitions. The first is PE1930—1, 9, 3, 0: we are getting to my mother’s age, now. It has been lodged by George Eckton and calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to ensure that a requirement of future rail contracts is that customers, as a matter of course, be given information on the cheapest possible fare, and to recognise the vital role of the existing ticket office estate in delivering the same.
Members will be aware that our predecessor committee considered a similar petition from Mr Eckton in the previous session. That petition was closed on the basis that the Scottish Government had committed to introducing an obligation on the operator to provide customers with clear and straightforward information on all fare options, including identification of the cheapest possible fare.
In his written submission accompanying the petition, Mr Eckton highlights that the previous commitment that was made by the Scottish Government is yet to be fulfilled. He has suggested that, because ScotRail is now in public ownership and is the property of the Scottish Government, it should be subject to the consumer duty. Mr Eckton has also suggested amending the price promise guarantee, to further assist passengers in accessing the lowest possible fare for their journey.
I wonder whether colleagues have, having balanced and considered the evidence, any suggestions for action or comments. Paul Sweeney looks like he is bursting to step forward with a suggestion, although I might have misread his signs.
Certainly, when we look at alternative technologies that are available in other jurisdictions—particularly in London, where there is an automatic fare-capping system that was introduced five or six years ago—we see that there are solutions that could offer a remedy, particularly on intra-Scotland travel as opposed to travel to other parts of the UK. Perhaps it is worth inviting submissions from the likes of Transport for London about its fare-capping technology and how it has been rolled out. That could offer a basis for how a system could be delivered in Scotland.
That seems to be an eminently sensible suggestion. Are there any other suggestions?
We should write to the Scottish Government to seek clarification on whether there are plans to extend the consumer duty to include ScotRail and other companies that are in public ownership. In writing to the Scottish Government, the committee may also wish to ask for a further update on the fares review—specifically, on the timeline for completing the review—and to ask what action is being taken to strengthen the commitment to a price promise guarantee.
We have those recommendations. Are there any more?
We could add to that correspondence to the Scottish Government a question to ascertain its view on the fare-capping “tap in, tap out” technology. I know that it has been promoted for buses in Scotland, but I have not heard much in relation to rail.
We can do that, too. Thank you very much. We agree to those suggestions.
Gender-based Violence (Education) (PE1934)
PE1934 is on developing an education resource on gender-based violence for all year groups in high school. It has been lodged by Craig Scoular on behalf of Greenfaulds high school rights and equalities committee. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to work with Education Scotland to develop such an educational resource. The resource should educate on the causes of gender-based violence and ensure that young people leave school with the tools to help them to create a safer society for women.
Statistics on gender-based violence are included in the petition background information. The petitioner states that
“educating our children will end any existing cycles of gender-based violence and prevent any new ones from starting.”
The Scottish Government’s response outlines existing resources and guidance that are relevant to the subject of the petition. They include learning about topics including, in primary school, gender-biased expectations, up to learning about sexual harassment and feminism in high school. It also states that the gender-based violence in schools working group will review existing resources, identify effective practice examples and develop new resources.
Based on the evidence that we have received on this important petition, do members have any comments or suggestions for action?
I think that we need to communicate with the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills to find out specifics about the area, and about the planned independent review on sexual harassment and gender-based violence and the practice that covers that, which is mentioned in the petition.
It is also important that we find out from the Scottish Government and Education Scotland how they monitor children and young people who are being consulted on the curriculum across Scotland, in line with the Scottish Government’s best practice, and whether the Scottish Government currently monitors data in relation to sexual assault in schools.
Details on the membership are also important; we need to find out the membership of the gender-based violence in schools working group.
If we could require all that, it would give us a much better outlook and understanding of where the Scottish Government is with the process and how it is progressing it.
Thank you. Do we have any other suggestions from colleagues?
It would perhaps be worth writing to the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and to the 32 local authority education services to ascertain what provision they make within schools. That could help to establish a pattern of activity.
Shall we write to COSLA in the first instance?
Members indicated agreement.
Scottish Ministerial Code (Independent Committee) (PE1935)
PE1935 is to urge the Scottish Government to create a committee outside the Parliament to judge whether ministers have broken the ministerial code. The petition has been lodged by Dillon Crawford.
The petitioner considers that a committee of non-MSPs would be able to act independently because they would not be affiliated to a party. The Scottish Government’s submission details the process by which ministers are held to account. Ministers are bound by the Scottish ministerial code, and a group of independent advisers currently exists to provide the First Minister with advice on which to base judgments in relation to conduct.
I think that PE1935 is an interesting petition. It is obviously motivated by current events. I wonder whether, in the first instance, we might invite the Scottish Parliament information centre to do a little bit of further work on how the various Parliaments within the UK currently process and deal with such business. I do not know where the Scottish system fits in with the systems in Northern Ireland, Wales or the rest of the UK, and I think that the petitioner and the public probably feel that there is a slight lack of transparency about how the arrangements have arisen. It would be useful for us at least to pull that work together and look at it as we consider the petition further.
Are colleagues content with that?
Members indicated agreement.
Cats (Compulsory Microchipping) (PE1938)
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?
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.
10:30As 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.
I am grateful to you for that, Christine. We have taken note of one or two areas that we might pursue. I am wondering what the consequences would be for us all if we could relocate to a house or street where the food was better. It might provoke a few controversies. [Laughter.]
Convener, I think that I will be in touch with Mrs Carlaw on that one.
Mr Carlaw does all the cooking, so there might be a disastrous outcome. [Laughter.]
I am grateful for what Christine Grahame has said. Are there any suggestions from colleagues in addition to the one that we have heard from Christine Grahame?
I adopted a cat 11 years ago—or I should say that a cat adopted me. I should never have fed it tuna and chicken. I must confess to pinching somebody’s cat a long time ago.
I would also like to write to the Scottish Government, seeking its view on the additional evidence that has been provided by the petitioner and SPICe regarding cat microchips and compulsory scanning, if that is acceptable to the committee.
Is that acceptable?
Members indicated agreement.
Fergus, are you nodding your head in agreement? Yes—I think you are. In that case, that is what we will do. We will keep the petition open.
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.
We will do that as well. Thank you very much.
That concludes the public part of our meeting. The next public meeting will take place on Wednesday 14 September 2022, with or without Mr Smokey as a guest. Thank you all.
10:32 Meeting continued in private until 10:35.Previous
Continued Petitions