 I would like to welcome everyone to the 12th meeting of the Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee here in 2022 for the avoidance of doubt. Our first agenda item this morning is the consideration of continued petitions. The first of those petitions is petition number 1887 to create an unborn victims of violence act lodged by Nicola Murray. This petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to create an unborn victims of violence act, creating a specific event that enables courts to hand down longer sentences for perpetrators of domestic abuse, which causes a miscarriage. We are joined this morning by Nicola Murray and her mother, Julia Rusgar. I'm delighted that you have come and are with us. The committee does not routinely hear from petitioners now because of the volume of petitions that we do receive. However, we thought in this particular instance that it would be helpful to give Nicola an opportunity to speak to the committee about why her petition is important. We will also be holding a round table session. We actually had hoped that that might have been later today, but the availability of other parties who want to participate in that is such that it will be in our first meeting after the summer recess. We will be hearing the evidence from Nicola today and continuing the petition to allow us to have that round table discussion at the beginning of September. We really are grateful to you and your mother for travelling to the Parliament today. Before we move on to explore the issue further, we obviously have considered it previously and read the various submissions. I would like to give you a few moments to say anything that you might like to say, whether prepared or spontaneous or whatever, just by way of an introduction. First of all, thank you for having me here and allowing me to speak to you. I just really wanted to bring this forward after Dr Mary Neill had submitted evidence for the original domestic abuse bill and it did not get in. Having the experience that I have personally and the women that I support through my support group, I just felt that it was very important that it does become part of our laws because it is such an important thing. It is life impacting for the victims and not just them personally for their families. When I lost my pregnancies, I lost a child, I lost children, my children lost siblings and my parents lost grandchildren. It impacts the entire family and, obviously, afterwards it is deeply traumatising and emotional because it is not just that you have to deal with the actual loss itself, it is the circumstances of the loss and the fact that the perpetrator can get away so easily with such often, not even being charged at all or, as you know from my own evidence, just really inappropriate sentencing, which is like rubbing salt in the winds of the victims. It is almost like saying that it meant nothing. That can add further trauma to the victims and their families because they feel like they have not received justice. The justice system, unfortunately, fails on many levels when it comes to domestic violence. It is very important that, as a nation Scotland, it can lead the way in that we already have, in a way, with the domestic abuse bill, which is brilliant in many ways, but there are areas where it could use tightening up, and this perhaps could even be an amendment to the bill rather than a standalone bill on its own. You touched on, briefly, the criminal justice system. What was your experience of that? It fails so much. When you report to the police, it is a lottery whether they are going to be knowledgeable about domestic violence and whether they are going to take the matter as seriously as what it is or whether they are going to try to dissuade you from reporting. Sometimes you will be told that this is a waste of time, which is wrong. If you go through with reporting, you might get a phone call saying, look, we have had him in, but we cannot charge him. The CPS says, we have not got enough. The fiscal said, we have not got enough. You are thinking, but I gave you pages and pages of evidence. If you do, by some chance of luck, which becomes a lottery, you will get through to court. Courts are quite traumatic. They take some steps to lessen the impact, but it is a traumatic process. You are having to walk past them in the hallway to get to the special room, which is not great. Although you might have a screen, you will have to be in the same room as the person who has done this to you. With the 2013 incident, which I have referenced in my evidence, we were lucky in that respect that we were in the witness muster room when the fiscal came through and told me that he changed his plea, but I was not told that he had taken a plea deal to a lesser charge, which meant that his sentence was that he was ordered to pay me £300 compensation for my loss, which, still to this day, that grates on me that that was what his punishment was. It just seemed deeply inappropriate considering what had happened and the trauma. My children witnessed what happened to me. They were playing in the garden when it happened. My daughter, who was then eight, had to be a witness for the fiscal, which you can understand was very traumatic for her, even though in the end she did not have to testify because he changed his plea. However, it seems to me that the law does not seem to recognise the impact of the abuse on the victim. Did you feel that you were not involved in the discussion about the change of plea or anything like that? No, not at all. Did you then have a sense that they simply wanted to dispense with the issue rather than redress the concern? Absolutely. That is exactly how we felt that it was just a case of, like, get this off the books and on with the next case, rather than redress what had happened and understand the impact that it had on the whole family. A final question from me, and then I will invite colleagues to speak. Your experience and the petition that you have brought forward here today, has that led you to understand the experience of others as well? What is your wider experience now of others who have experienced a similar situation? I run a support group, Broad East Trust, and I have met hundreds of women, not just in Perth, who come physically to the meet-up, but we do Zoom support and online support for women who are in other areas and even not in this country—some in America, Canada, Australia as well—that have had similar. We all seem to have pretty similar experiences when it comes to getting justice for what has happened to us. It all seems to be failing somehow, and I am not sure how we fix it exactly. I think that it is more listening to survivors and seeing where we can tweak things, because the legislation is certainly there with the domestic abuse bill. Sentencing guidelines do not seem to be followed when it comes to the sentencing, because a lot of times I am seeing that they will be told to go on the Caledonian project or that they will have to do community service or that they will have a paltry fine or a compensation order that is much less than £400 or there or thereabouts. It will be one case that I am aware of, but it was ordered to bear a £50 compensation. In your case, you felt that the value of the lost child that you had was quantified at £300 and did not seem to you to represent a fair or just outcome. Colleagues, can I have an indication of those who might like to speak? I come to Paul Sweeney first. Thank you, convener. It is harrowing to listen to your personal experience and to recognise how deficient the law in Scotland is in relation to this matter. I was another submission that received by the committee in relation to the fact that the statutory provisions in other parts of the UK are much more storong in relation to the statutory offence of what is known as child destruction is an aggravating factor. Would you say that that provides a good framework for which the law in Scotland could be brought up to the same level? To be brought up to the same level as the rest of the UK, because, as you rightly state, we are the only nation in the whole of the UK that is deficient in this area. I really think that we lead the world in a lot of other areas. Scotland is a great country. We could do so much more to lead by example. I think that the Scottish Government's response did not address the primary aggravating factor of the death of an unborn child. It was merely concerned with the offence of domestic abuse, and there was my aggravating factor that could be defined in law in some of the cases in Scotland where this has happened. The sentences have been particularly light compared to other parts of the UK. Do you agree that that is an anti-quick response from the Scottish Government? Yes, I would, yes. I would just also like to ask, just whilst I'm on this line of questioning, you mentioned the idea of an amendment. Wouldn't it necessarily need a discrete complete new act? Can you just develop that a bit more, sorry? Perhaps, in the existing domestic abuse bill, we could add in an amendment to strengthen that bill. Okay, that's certainly something that's worth considering. I was just also wanting to maybe offer a couple of ideas as potential other mechanisms. It's a very good candidate for a member's bill as well, so it might be worth discussion. I'm sure that the committee has noted that, but also discussion with your constituency and regional MSPs about someone who might be interested in the idea of sponsoring such a bill. There are certainly MSPs who have been working in this field that might be of interest to them, so there is just another potential mechanism by which to achieve the remedy, but I think that I might be rest on that for now. Okay, that's right. Thank you. Fergus Ewing. Yes, thank you, convener, and like Paul, I did find your account harrowing, and I'm very sorry that the system really does appear to have let you down, not just in one way, but in several ways, so I just wanted to make that observation, and thank you very much for coming before us on this issue that's so important for many women, sadly. I didn't want just to pursue the main question, really, which is, should the law be changed and if so, how? Am I right in saying that you would like to see a specific reference in a new criminal offence to circumstances where the violence or coercive action by the man, in almost every case, would become a specific offence where that led to the loss of an unborn child? Is that your primary objective in raising this petition? Yes, it is. I can understand that, and as Mr Sweeney has just said, that could be done either by the Government or by an individual MSP. I did not want to put an alternative to you, which has been raised by those advising us in the Parliament Information Centre and a very helpful paper that they provided, and they have suggested that rather than a brand new offence, a specific offence, it would be possible in relation to how the existing offences are worded to require that the charge, the actual words used in the charge against the assailant or the accused, specifically refer to the fact that there has been violence which has led to the loss of an unborn child. In other words, an alternative course of action could be that rather than creating a brand new offence, we would urge that the Scottish Government and the justice system, the procurator fiscal and the lawd advocate would require that this be specifically mentioned in the wording of the charge. I wonder if you feel that that might be an acceptable alternative to the creation of a specific offence? That could be an acceptable alternative. As long as there were mechanisms in place to ensure that police and the fiscal and the sheriffs were actually doing their job in that respect. Yes, well thank you, that's very helpful because I think that's perhaps a point that we might colleagues wish to pursue with the relevant authorities as an alternative. The Scottish Sentencing Council in their submission said that there's nothing precludes the loss of an unborn child caused by violent action or coercive control from being libled as part of an offence, so they say that could be a route. However, I think that I'm going to ask them if we have the opportunity to say, has this ever happened? Has this ever happened in practice? Because if it hasn't, well indeed. I don't know the answer to that, but I think it's a point that we will pursue to see if we can get justice for you. The other area of question I just wanted to ask was that you were faced with the ghastly situation of finding that the charge had been reduced really without, as I understand it, without any consultation. Of course, at the end of the day, the prosecutorial system is and is rightly independent. The people in charge are independent and rightly so, but do you feel that there should be a requirement for prior communication with the victim of this ghastly circumstance prior to any reduction in the gravity of the offence being agreed, if you like, between the fiscal and the defence lawyer perhaps? Absolutely, I do. I think that the victim of the crime is the most important person in the whole process and that, yes, they should be consulted where things are going to be dropped down to a lesser charge or considered to be dropped down and that their input and their thoughts and feelings should be considered. Yes, well that's extremely helpful. Thank you very much and I think that these are points that I would be very keen with colleagues to pursue, but thank you for speaking out so clearly today. Alexander Stewart. Thank you and can I also commend you for your courage today by coming in and making the points that you've made. You spoke about the difficulties that you had when it came to reporting and dealing with the police and their knock-on effect that they had towards you as a victim. What would you like to see developed within possibly Police Scotland as to how they manage the changes that came in through the Domestic Abuse Act saw them look at priorities within domestic abuse, but within your circumstances there is still obviously a gap and things fall through the net? Can I ask what you think they should be looking at or what areas that could be developed? It boils down to one thing, better training. That's what they need, better training in the subject of domestic violence. It's often still greatly misunderstood by people who say that they know about it. The effects of coercive control especially are greatly misunderstood especially by police in my experience. Following on from that, if there's not the understanding when you're putting forward your case to the police, then when you're trying to then move that forward and you've expressed the difficulties you had when you went to court as to how that happens, was there any support mechanism from the police or anybody else for you going through that process? Not from the police, no, only from the VIA and the court. What would you see if you had an opportunity to develop some of that and change the law or change the way that they tackle that process? As a case is going forward, if it's a particularly serious case like that, having a named liaison officer is good to keep you up to date with what's happening and to check in with you because it can be very disheartening. Certainly in my own experience, the perpetrator had contacted me several times, breaching his bail conditions during the wait to go to court, trying to coerce me into meeting with him and trying to coerce me into not testifying. A lot of times he was arrested, he was a knight in the cells, he was back at the next day doing the exact same thing again and again. There was one officer who was really good and he spoke to me down the floor and he went, do not feel guilty for one second, he knows what he's doing and you did the right thing in reporting and that really helped to change my mindset at that time so I think it is important that the police are supporting the victims of crime and you talked about your own peer group that you've set up and do you liaise with any of the authorities yourself? Do you go out to them or do they come to you? No, I do try to but they tend to be quite dismissive of me. I do try to because a lot of times a lot of the ladies that are coming to me, they're having difficulty with trying to get police to take it seriously enough to come out and take a statement or a police are not keeping them up to date or they've taken a statement and they're not even bothered charging the individual so chasing up things on behalf of ladies and even accompanying them to court. I'm just seeing my own scenario playing out again and again and I just thought, I need to do something. You're right if lessons have not been learned and situation isn't changing then something needs to be done to try and make that happen and what you're attempting to do is bridge that gap so by doing that and as I say I commend you for all you've done so far and for coming here today because that gives us an opportunity then to think about how we can progress and where it can go to but the last thing would be you talked about compensation and things of that nature. I would have rather that my perpetrator went to jail and that that gave us the safety and the breathing space to heal from what he had done rather than him being out and being able to just carry on. You said when you spoke you talked about belittled the whole process by putting a monetary sum against that situation and that's not the reason. I don't think that there is any sum of money that can compensate for such a loss. The Crown Office and the Procurator Fiscal Service say that there are six cases where domestic abuse led to the loss of a child and obviously you've come here this morning a very strong person if I may say supported by your mother obviously with a family. For some of the other women I imagine the circumstances must be very different and the lack of that support network will leave them hugely exposed and I wonder too with some of the women with whom you are engaged whether the lack of direction or seriousness as they report the case leaves them feeling exposed and at further risk. If you feel that is a very significant factor perhaps in the underreporting or the non-pursuit of a number of these issues. Absolutely, the way that the system works puts a lot of women off reporting and they feel that it's not taken seriously, they feel that they're dismissed or even blamed sometimes. Often quite a lot of police officers will ask the question what did you do to make him do that. That question should never be asked, never. They do feel very let down, very vulnerable. After the loss of a child in any circumstances you will feel vulnerable and you'll feel this need to be protected and I was very lucky that I have such an amazing family and my mum has been tremendous as a support. I really do not know what I would have done without her and a lot of women that I engage with just they don't have family support for whatever reason. They may have had to flee their home and their support network of friends and things and they feel very vulnerable, very let down, very hopeless almost at times and I do feel that that's something that we really need to change. We have an opportunity here to do that and whatever we can do, whether that's by a member's bill, an amendment or creating an act, I think that we really need to. Thank you. I think that your testimony has been compelling this morning. I know that there's an opportunity. Paul, sorry that you have a further question that you'd like to ask. Thank you, convener. It was just in reading the papers that I mentioned made about the Scottish Law Commission's current work programme includes two projects, one on homicide and one on aspects of family law, which come close to the topic of the petition but that neither covers the actual issue raised, so I was just suggesting perhaps another avenue to explore might be a meeting with the Scottish Law Commission of this committee, might be able to facilitate such a meeting to discuss those projects and how that might be able to interface with the particular issue and deficiency that you've obviously highlighted today. I'd be happy to do that, yeah. Okay, thank you. Well, as I said, thank you. Your testimony has been compelling this morning. We will be meeting again after September with a round table with various representative groups, so we'll be keeping the petition open and we'll be seeking to take the issues raised in it forward. I wonder colleagues, it occurs to me too that this may very well be a subject that the committee might wish to put before the chamber in a full chamber debate once we've heard a little bit further about all of this and to, in that way, bring the Government to the chamber to discuss with us the issues that it has explored in the autumn. That might be another route for us to take forward. So, Nicola, thank you very much. Julie, thank you for coming with us and I suspend this session for the moment. We now move to continue with item 1, which is the consideration of continued petitions. The first of those is petition number 1860, new legislation for prescription and limitation act lodged by Jennifer Morrison Holdham. That petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to amend the prescription and limitation act to allow retrospective claims to be made. We last considered that petition on the 18th of May, and we agreed to write to the Scottish Government. Following our previous consideration, we've received our response from the Minister for Community Safety, which members will have noted in their papers. I wonder if members have any comments or suggestions for action. David Torrance, thank you, convener. I would like to close the petition under rule 15.7 of standing orders on the basis that why the Scottish Government has undertaken to keep this area of law under review. Existing legislation already allows the courts to override principle limitation time limits when it is persuaded that it is equitable to do so and that the Scottish Government has no plans to collect and evaluate information on the use of judicial discretion under section 19A of the prescription and limitation act at the Scotland Act 1973. Colleagues, are we minded? We are. We thank the petitioner for raising the petition, but we will close the petition under rule 15.7 for the reasons that David Torrance has suggested and agreed to. Colleagues, we now consider a number of continuing petitions that arise out of the evidence session that we held last meeting. The first of those is petition number 1864 to increase the ability of communities to influence planning decisions for onshore wind farms. This was lodged by Eileen Jackson on behalf of Scotland Against Spin and it calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to increase the ability of communities to influence planning decisions for onshore wind farms by adopting English planning legislation for the determination of onshore wind farm developments, by empowering local authorities to ensure local communities are given sufficient professional help to engage in the planning process, and by appointing an independent advocate to ensure that local participants are not bullied and intimidated during public inquiries. We last considered this as I said a moment to go on 15 June when we also heard from the Minister for Public Finance, Planning and Community Wealth and his officials that at that meeting we explored the need for the engagement with the UK Government in pursuing changes to the electricity act, which might enable decisions onshore wind farm developments to be taken at a local authority level. We also heard about efforts to encourage earlier engagement with communities in the planning process with a greater emphasis on collaboration and also about attempts to shift the dial away from conflict between communities and developers. Since that meeting, we have now received a new submission from the petitioner in which she shares reflections on the evidence that we heard. I wonder, therefore, if members have any comments or suggestions in relation to this particular petition 1864. David Torrance Thank you, convener. I wonder if a committee could write to the Minister for Public Finance, Planning and Community Wealth to follow up on outstanding issues from evidence session on 15 June 2022. That includes any recent discussions that the Scottish Government may have heard with the UK Government regarding issues raised in the petition and to write to a planning advisory service, PAS, regarding the training that they provide to staff and volunteers supporting communities engaging in the planning process. I would also like us to write to the Scottish Government's planning and environmental appeals division, DPEA, and ask what training and guidance is provided to reporters specifically in relation to how witnesses are treated during public inquiries. David Torrance Do colegs, do you have any further suggestions to make? Are we content with the suggestions that are raised? Pulse Weenie Pulse Weenie Yes, convener. It was just interesting that there was an idea that the petition has been conflated. Some issues were mixed up or in devolved and reserved competences. I thought that that was worthwhile trying to unpack a bit and maybe in relation to some of the discussion. I raised some questions about the interaction between the Scottish Ministers and the UK Government Ministers, particularly Alistair Jack and Greg Hance. Is it worth inviting those respective Ministers to offer a view regarding the electricity act and the provisions that they are in? I often think that when you test some of those things, for technical matters, they are often devolved because people go, which is probably better over there. David Torrance I am quite happy that we do that because I do agree that there were some issues raised that you are quite correct. We will incorporate that as well. Petition 1885 makes offering community shared ownership mandatory for all wind farm development planning proposals. This was lodged by Karen Murphy and calls on the Scottish Government to make community shared ownership a mandatory requirement to be offered as part of all proposals for wind farm development. That is to be considered on 15 June. During the evidence session, the committee raised the importance of community shared ownership as a method of raising funds at local level for people in their communities. The committee questioned whether the minister had engaged with the UK Government, and I think that those are issues again that Paul Sweeney has just raised, to seek approval for amendments to the electricity act so that it can mandate community shared ownership. The minister indicated that such conversations had not taken place in relation to community energy. We have also had a recent submission from the petitioner reiterating her view that raising a land tax could be a route to mandate community shared ownership. I am happy to suggest that we write to the minister for public finance, planning community well to follow up on those outstanding issues and again to raise the issue of any recent discussions that the Scottish Government may have had with the UK Government in relation to the issues raised in the petition. I am happy to ask the minister what role he thinks local place plans and early community engagement in the planning process can play. I am also happy that we asked the minister for his views on the petitioner's suggestion that developers must be offered and secure 15 per cent community shared ownership investment. Are there any further suggestions from the committee? Are we content to pick those? Again, petition number 1902 on behalf of Maria Aitken, on behalf of the Caitanists, we are moving on to a separate one altogether. No, no, I think that Fergus wants to come in. Oh, Fergus, apologies. Sorry, Jackson, I wasn't sure if you could hear me there. I have just agreed to the courses of action that you have just outlined in relation to petition 1885. I wonder, given that energy is a policy issue that rests really substantially with the minister for energy, we should also write to him as well. I wonder if, in writing to both ministers, we might ask if there are any plans that the Scottish Government has to provide additional funding to enable communities to pursue an interest in community ownership, and in particular, perhaps, whether the Scottish National Investment Bank, which operates commercially but has a green mandate, if you like, could be requested to provide an element or a tranche of funding from which communities might be able to draw, as well as raising money from other sources, such as private banks and so on and so forth. So, in order to pursue what the positioner wants, those related aspects are also relevant, perhaps ones that we could seek the Scottish Government's views upon as to whether they have additional plans to help enable community ownership of renewable energy projects to become far more prevalent than it is at the moment. Yes, fine. We're happy to incorporate that as well. Thank you, Fergus Ewing. We'll do that too. Members content with that proposal? That brings us to, I'm just checking where we were at there, to 1902, and that is to allow appeal process for community participation requests. Sorry, I'm just trying to… I was just trying to… which petition, Rhoda Grant, was joining us for, and that's what was throwing me in. It's this petition that you're joining us for this morning, Rhoda Grant. This was lodged by Maria Akin on behalf of the Caithness Health community action team, calling on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to allow an appeal process for community participation requests under the Community Empowerment Act 2015. Despite me scurrying around in my notes, my notes now tell me that Rhoda Grant is joining us for this petition. We last considered it on 20 April, colleagues will remember, when we had round table discussion. We discovered that the Scottish Community Development Centre has been undertaking our work on participation requests. We agreed to write to them to request more information on this work programme, specifically on how the working group will report its findings. The response indicates that a number of proposals have emerged, including models for local reviews, appeals and mediation. Its work is on-going, with the potential to deliver additional promotional work surrounding participation requests, as well as supporting outcome improvement processes. That will include further community engagement in relation to reviews and appeals. I wonder, Rhoda Grant, if there's anything that you'd like to contribute to our consideration of the petition at this point. Yes, I'm heartened that this work is on-going, but I guess that I'm disappointed that it's taking this long, because chat fulfills the expectation of a community body. It should have that request, it should be involved in decision making, and it should have that request agreed. We probably have to wait and see—maybe I would ask if you would write to the Scottish Government and see what timeline it would be proposing to take action to put in a change to it, or put in an appeal process, because that's a problem. We know that chat should be accepted, but the trouble is that there is no appeals process when they're not accepted. I wonder if we could ask the Scottish Government, one, when they hope to be in a position to instigate an appeals process. Could they issue some guidance or something in the interim, just so that we could get chat where they should be, because they do a huge amount of work locally and they're trusted by their community? I think that it would be really helpful if they were around the table with NHS Highland. You've heard petitioners from the north here on other issues before, and chat would be well able to represent their views with NHS Highland. We might not be in the position where people feel that they can only petition this Parliament to try and get some action. I think that it might cut through some of the concerns that people have. I'm quite happy to write to the Scottish Government along the lines suggested by Rhoda Grant on this occasion. I think that once we've done that and seen the response, we'll be in a better position to decide what further we can do in relation to the petition. I certainly think that we would want or suggest to the petitioner that, in due course, after we've taken this element of it forward, it might well be that they want to monitor the work of this group and see whether or not a fresh petition is required at a later date. However, we will write to the Scottish Government on the first instance along the lines suggested. Thank you very much for that suggestion, Rhoda Grant. Petition number 1917, to provide full legal aid to parents fighting for access to their children. This is the last of our continuing petitions this morning. It's been lodged by Amy Stevenson and calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to provide full legal aid to all parents who are fighting for access to their child, children, regardless of income. We last considered this petition on 18 May. We agreed to write to the Scottish Government seeking more information on the review of the legal aid system and on their plans for a provisional timetable for bringing forward the legal aid reform bill. Since then, we have received a response from the Scottish Government and that was included in our meeting papers for this morning. I wonder whether members have any suggestions as to how we might respond accordingly. Alexander Stewart. I would propose that, under rule 15.7 of standing orders on the basis that the Scottish Government intends to introduce the legal aid reform bill during this time that we closed the petition. In closing the petition, the committee may wish to highlight to the petitioner that they can contact the local MSPs about pursuing amendments to the bill once introduced to ensure that the issues raised in the petition are fully considered. Thank you, Mr Stewart. Does that meet the general approval of the committee? It does. We agree. Thank you. We will close the petition and write accordingly to the petitioner with the suggestions that Mr Stewart has made. That brings us to item 2 this morning, which is the consideration of new petitions. The first of those is petition number 1930, 1930, in the case of getting to my mother's age now. It is sure that customers are always given information on cheapest possible fare in new ScotRail contract. The first of our new petitions today is to do exactly that, and it is lodged by George Ectham. It is a petition calling on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to ensure that a requirement of future rail contracts is for customers to be given information on the cheapest possible fare, as a matter of course, and recognise the vital role of the existing ticket office estate in delivering on the same. Members will be aware from our previous predecessor committee that we considered a similar petition from Mr Ectham last session. That was closed on the basis that the Scottish Government had committed to introduce an obligation on the operator to provide customers with clear straightforward information on all fare options, including identification of the cheapest possible fare. In his written submission accompanying this petition, Mr Ectham highlights that the previous commitment that was made by the Scottish Government has yet to be fulfilled and has suggested that, as ScotRail is now in public ownership, the property of the Scottish Government should be subject to the consumer duty. Mr Ectham has also suggested amending the price promise guarantee to further assist passengers in accessing the lowest possible fare for their journey. I wonder and consider the evidence whether colleagues have any suggestions or comments for action. Paul Sweeney looks like he is bursting to step forward with the suggestion. I may have misread his signs there, but he looks— I just think certainly when you look at alternative technologies available in other jurisdictions, particularly in London, where there is an automatic fare capping system in place, which was introduced maybe five or six years ago. There are technological solutions out there that can offer a remedy, particularly with the interest of Scotland travel, as opposed to travel to the other parts of the UK. Perhaps it is worth inviting submissions from the likes of Transport for London about their fare capping technology and how that has been rolled out. Perhaps that could offer a basis for how that could be delivered in Scotland. I think that that seems to be a very sensitive suggestion. Any other suggestions? David Torrance? To write to the Scottish Government to seek clarification on whether there are plans to extend the consumer duty to include ScotRail now that the company is in public ownership, and in writing to the Scottish Government, the committee may also wish to ask for a further update on the fair's review, specifically the timeline for completing the review, and to ask what action has been undertaken to strengthen the commitments to a price-promise guarantee. Those recommendations any further? Mr Sweeney? On that correspondence, the Scottish Government may be ascertaining their view on the fare capping, tap-in, tap-out type technology. I know that it has been promoted for buses in Scotland, but I haven't heard much in relation to rail. Into that, too. Thank you very much. We are agreed. Petition number 1934, to develop an educational resource on gender-based violence for all-year groups in high school. This has been lodged by Craig Schooler on behalf of Green Falls High School Rights and Equalities Committee, and it calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to work with Education Scotland to develop an educational resource on gender-based violence for all-year groups in high school. This resource should educate on the causes of gender-based violence and ensure that young people leave school with the tools to help to create a safer society for women. Statistics on gender-based violence are included in the petition's background information, and 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 relevant to the petition. That includes learning about topics such as gender-biased expectations in primary school, up to sexual harassment and feminism in high school. It also states that gender-based violence in schools working group will review existing resources, identify effective practice examples and develop new resources. On the balance of the evidence that we have received on an important petition, do members have any comments or suggestions for action? We need to communicate with the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills to find out specifics about the whole area. Whether there is the planned independent review on sexual harassment and gender-based violence petition and the practice that covers that will be set out in the petition. It is also important to find out from the Scottish Government 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 on schools across Scotland. For details on the membership, that is also important. We need to find out the gender-based violence in schools working group membership. If we could possibly require all of those, that would give us a much better outlook and understanding of where the Scottish Government is with this whole process and how they are progressing it themselves. Thank you. Do we have any other suggestions from colleagues? Perhaps it might be worth writing to COSLA and also the 32 local authority education services to ascertain what provision they make within their schools. Perhaps that could help to establish a pattern of activity. Petition number 1935 creates an independent committee to judge whether the Scottish ministers have broken the ministerial code. This new petition is lodged by Dylan Crawford and it calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to create a committee outside the Parliament to judge whether ministers have broken the ministerial code. The petitioner considers that a committee of non-MSPs would be able to act independently as they are not affiliated with a party. The Scottish Government 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 this is an interesting petition. It is obviously motivated by current events. I wonder, colleagues, whether in the first instance we might invite Spice to do a little bit of further work on how the different parliaments within the UK currently process and deal with this business. I really do not know where the Scottish system sits in with the system in Northern Ireland, Wales or the rest of the UK. I think that the petitioner and the public feel that there is a slight lack of transparency around how all those arrangements have arisen. I think that it will be useful for us at least to pull that work together and have a look at that as we consider the petition further. That brings us to our final petition this morning, petition number 1938, to introduce compulsory microchipping of cats in Scotland. This has been lodged by Carly Power and it calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to introduce the mandatory microchipping of cats in Scotland and assess the effectiveness of current microchip scanning processes. We are joined today by the Parliament's most famous cat owner, Christine Creme MSP. Welcome, Christine. The Scottish Government has indicated that it is working alongside the other UK Administrations on welfare issues, including consideration of microchipping cats. It advises that officials are following DEFRA proposals in this 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 does raise the issue of mandatory scanning and highlights that standards have been falling below best practice. The petitioner cites a lack of understanding and training in relation to scanning equipment as a potential reason for falling standards and says that no official guidance is in place for councils on this issue. 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 it raised both positive and negative impacts arising from compulsory scanning. It is quite likely that the Scottish Government, having indicated that it is looking closely at the consultation and relation to microchipping and scanning, will be inclined to follow whatever final course the UK Government chooses in relation to the issue. Christine Grahame, is there anything that you would like to say in relation to the petition this morning? Yes, I would like to add a bit because, obviously, it is a distinction between dogs being microchipped, which is for a variety of reasons, and compulsory, but also it makes it easier about dog control notices and so on. Cats are a different kettle of fish. I do not know why I mentioned fish with cats, but they were. However, it is a welfare issue for cats and it is also a responsible ownership issue. If I can briefly tell you a very short story, convener, it is that many years ago, when my son went out in the garden and found a cat in the pouring rain under the bushheats, we had two cats of our own at the time and we brought it in. We kept it safe overnight and it was obvious that the cat was very ill. We took it down to the vets and the vets said that this is a very, very old cat, it is dying, it has kidney failure, and my son, I burst into tears and the vets said, how long have you known the cat? We said 24 hours, but it did not matter. The point of that story is that the owner would never know. The cat quite often disappeared to die. My own one did that and went down the garden and I found him, so they go away from the house. From the point of view of an owner, either if a cat is injured, killed on the road or just disappears to die quietly away from its normal place, it is natural for a cat. It is very upsetting for the cat owner to never know what actually happened. The same when cats actually adopt another household that has been known to happen, they just wander off and decide, the food is better here, I think I will stay. Again, if they were microchipped, at least the owner would know where they have gone. Now, I am not obsessed with cats. Let us make this play. I do think that it is important. I commend the various charities who, if you are going to get a rescue cat and Mr Smokey, who is very famous, the SSPC charge you to have the cat neutered, which they usually are not, and to have the cat microchipped. It is a welfare issue, it is responsible ownership. I note that, if I look at the Government's report on this, response to the Animal Welfare Commission says in its July 2021 work plan, among quotes, potential areas of work in the medium term, is to consider welfare aspects on microchipping, domestic cats, compulsory neutering of cats and outdoor cat controls and so on. Now, it seems to me that is a light touch, potential areas. If I may ask the committee if they would consider writing to the Animal Welfare Commission to see if there is anything more solid they are proposing to do regarding this issue. I please say the other matters that you have raised about scanning and so on. As far as I understand it, there is no cost. There should be a cost to the public person this, because if an animal is taken to the vets and they do not know who is, they can scan it and find the owner. The main thing is that you bring the details on the microchip up to date, if you move. Finally, if you have a cat flap and I am not advertising various manufacturing devices, if you have a cat flap that has identified microchips, then your cat can come in and out of the house with no other cat coming in. Mr Smoky has that protection from any invaders, so only he can come in and out of the cat flap and I am sure he is very happy with that. There are a whole range of issues that I would like to see compulsory. Every time you talk about cats, people smile at you, but many of us love the wee divils. I am grateful to you for that, Christine Grahame. I think that we have taken note of one or two areas that we might pursue. I am just wondering what the consequences would be for us all if we could all relocate to the house of the street where the food was better. I am sorry. I think that that might provoke a few controversies. Convenor, I think that I will be in touch with Mrs Carlaw about that one. Well, Mr Carlaw does all the cooking, so that might be a disastrous outcome, but I am grateful to that. Are there any other suggestions that colleagues might like to make in addition to the one that we have received from Christine Grahame? David Torrance. Thank you. Convenor, as somebody who adopted a cat a long years ago, or should I say, a cat adopted me, I should never have fed it to nor checked me, you know that. I must confess to pinching somebody's cat. I would also like to write to the Scottish Government seeking a view on the additional evidence provided by a petitioner and Spice regarding the compulsory scanning of cat microchips in Scotland, if that is acceptable for the committee. Okay, and it is, is it? Fergus, are you nodding your head in agreement to that? Yes, I think you are. In which case, then, would that is what we will do? Keep the petition open. I just ask that you take touch with the Animal Welfare Commission to see if there is a more specific timetable, because that is what I have in your briefing. It is rather casual, what they are saying just now. We will do that as well. Thank you very much. That leads us to conclude the public section of our meeting this morning. The next public session will take place on Wednesday, 14 September, with or without Mr Smokey, as a guest. We now move into private session. Thank you all.