Official Report 685KB pdf
We move to item 2, which is consideration of new petitions. As we always do in advance of our first consideration of a petition—I say this because there could be people who are joining us or watching our proceedings for the first time in order to hear how their petition is being treated—we take two actions. We contact the Scottish Parliament information centre, which is the Parliament’s independent research body, to get a briefing on the substance of the issues that are raised in the petition, and we write to the Scottish Government for an initial impression of those issues.
We do both those things because, historically, when the committee first considered a petition, those would be the first two things that we would decide to do. All that waiting for that information did was delay our consideration of the petition. Taking those two actions allows us to accelerate the process.
Horses’ Tail Hair Removal (Ban) (PE2130)
The first new petition is PE2130, which has been lodged by James A Mackie. It calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to introduce a ban on the removal of all hair from a horse’s tail, leaving a bare stump, other than for medical reasons.
As Mr Mackie notes in the background information that he provided, the tail is a vital part of a horse’s anatomy that serves several functions. The tail assists in temperature regulation, is a mechanism for balance by subtly influencing the alignment of the horse’s hind, deters pests and is a vital communication centre for relaying messages about the horse’s mood, health, energy and locomotion.
The SPICe briefing notes that horses are protected animals under the Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Act 2006, which includes general offences such as causing a protected animal unnecessary suffering and carrying out a prohibited procedure on an animal. The act permits the Scottish ministers to make codes of practice for protecting animals, and the “Code of Practice for the Welfare of Equidae” was published in 2009. I note that the code does not include anything specific on tail hair removal.
The petitioner and others, such as Animal Concern, suggest that there are alternatives to removing tail hair, such as braiding or bandaging, which keep the hair out of harm’s way and can be undone easily, allowing the tail to function naturally.
In response to the petition, the Minister for Agriculture and Connectivity states that the Scottish Government does not support or recommend the complete removal of a horse’s tail hair. However, the Government is of the view that a ban on the removal of hair from horse tails would be an unnecessary and disproportionate response. Instead, it suggests that the issue should be addressed in updated equine guidance, and it notes that new guidance is currently being developed.
We have received a submission from Mr Mackie in which he responds to the minister’s comments. He notes that, as guidelines are not enforceable, legislation is required. The submission includes quotes from a House of Lords debate that took place in 1938 ahead of the introduction of the tail docking and nicking ban, and Mr Mackie suggests that the arguments that were made in that debate are just as relevant today.
The Scottish Government has given a view on its likely course of action, and I doubt that there is much time left for primary legislation in the current parliamentary session. What are colleagues inclined to suggest?
There is a rush of enthusiasm to identify how we might proceed. Do you have any views, Mr Ewing?
If equine guidance is currently being developed, perhaps we could ascertain when it will be produced and provided, and allow the petitioner the opportunity to comment once it has been produced. I know that he argues that guidance in itself will be insufficient, because it would not outlaw practice that he believes to be injurious. There seems to be a fair amount of evidence to support that; indeed, the minister talks about injurious ill-health side effects.
To be fair to the petitioner, if guidance is to be produced, he should be given an opportunity—given all the work that has been done subsequent to his lodging of the petition—to see whether the guidance cuts the mustard.
Let us not try to find appropriate metaphors, Mr Ewing.
“Hair today, gone tomorrow” comes to mind. However, I had better not stray into facetious territory, because, to be fair, the petitioner has raised a point about which he and other people feel strongly. For that reason, I do not think that we could close the petition yet; we should allow it serious consideration.
Since you are keen to make hay with the petition, we will keep it open, if colleagues are content with that proposal. We will seek clarity from the Scottish Government on the timetable for the equine guidance, which is much anticipated, and we will then invite the petitioner to comment. Does the committee agree?
Members indicated agreement.
Scottish Rivers (Legal Right to Personhood) (PE2131)
We move to petition PE2131, which was lodged by Professor Louise Welsh and Jude Barber on behalf of the Empire Cafe. I wonder whether our remaining guests in the public gallery might, in fact, be them—it seems that they might well be. I am tempted to remind myself where the Empire Cafe is, because I have a feeling that I know. However, I shall not.
The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to grant the River Clyde—and, potentially, other rivers in Scotland—the legal right to personhood by adopting the universal declaration on the rights of rivers; appointing a nature director to act as a guardian of the River Clyde, with responsibility for upholding its river rights; and considering whether an alternative mechanism should be established to act for the rights of the river, its inhabitants—both human and non-human—and society at large.
For our consideration of the petition, we are joined by our MSP colleague and former member of the committee, Paul Sweeney. Mr Sweeney joins us remotely, just by way of a change—he must have got fed up coming in for the proceedings on a season-ticket basis. Good morning, Mr Sweeney—it is always a pleasure to have you with us.
10:30As the SPICe briefing highlights, granting legal personhood to rivers is part of the wider rights-to-nature movement, which is an emerging area of conservation law and practice. Although legal personhood is used for other non-human entities, such as companies, and has been granted to rivers in New Zealand, Bangladesh and Canada, the design of rights-to-nature designation varies markedly.
In its response to the petition, the Scottish Government states that it does not support the proposals of the petition and notes that there would be a need to balance the rights of rivers with the rights of existing natural persons and existing non-natural persons. The Scottish Government considers that there are well-developed policy mechanisms in place that balance the interests of nature, society and the economy, including legislation to protect and improve Scotland’s water environment.
The Government’s response also draws our attention to the designation of the Clyde mission programme as a national development in the most recent iteration of the national planning framework, NPF4. For those reasons, the Government’s view is that granting rivers legal personhood is unnecessary and would have unpredictable results.
We have also received a submission from the petitioners, which welcomes the approach in NPF4 in respect of the Clyde mission. However, the petitioners remain of the view that
“There are insufficient governance and stewardship mechanisms in place to implement and safeguard the River Clyde and its potential”,
and they note that, although the Clyde is central to the broad remit of the Clyde mission,
“the river itself is not represented as an entity.”
Before we consider what further action we might take, I ask Paul Sweeney whether there is anything that he would like to say to the committee.
Thank you, convener. It is a pleasure to join the committee again today. I felt that I had to be close to the Clyde to make this statement, which is why I did not come to Edinburgh today.
I was rather disappointed by the Government’s response to the petitioners, because the points that the Government made in rebutting the petitioners’ requests represented the actual position of the petitioners, so I feel that they are in violent agreement. Legal personhood for a river might seem like a bit of an esoteric concept, but I think that it is exactly what is needed. Indeed, that has been a glaring gap in our policy landscape for some time.
The Scottish Government cited the Clyde mission as a vehicle for such work, which might be something to consider, but I agree with the petitioners on the fundamental point that there are
“insufficient governance and stewardship mechanisms in place to implement and safeguard the River Clyde and its potential.”
Although the petitioners
“understand that the River Clyde is central to Clyde Mission’s ... remit and ... sits at the centre of the Clyde corridor,”
they point out that
“the river itself is not represented as an entity”,
nor is there a formal mechanism for all stakeholders to be involved.
I think that an opportunity exists for further development. A myriad of private owners have significant interests in the control of the river and its hinterland, yet there are no formal obligations to engage or consult beyond fairly threadbare planning and statutory obligations. There is a need to improve accountability all round and to address those issues.
Historically, the river had a far greater degree of oversight. The petitioners cite the Loch Lomond and the Trossachs national park as a potential benchmark for how the current arrangements could be evolved. However, the issue is not purely about the nature aspects of the river; it is about all aspects of the management of the river, including the population, industry and so on.
Glasgow Town Council, which became trustee of the River Clyde in 1770, initially had management responsibilities for dredging and harbour development. The River Improvement Trust of 1809 added ferries to its remit in 1840. In turn, in 1858, that was replaced by the Clyde Navigation Trust, which had a fairly formal standing. It had nine representatives of ship owners, harbour rate payers were represented, the Corporation of Glasgow had 10 representatives, and the chamber of commerce, the Merchants House, the Trades House, the County of Lanark Council and, indeed, the boroughs of Dumbarton, Clydebank, Renfrew, Govan and Partick were all represented.
That evolved into the Clyde Port Authority in 1966, which was a trust port, and then the Ports Act 1991 opened the door for the Clyde Port Authority to be privatised. It was the subject of a management buy-out, floated on the London Stock Exchange and then acquired by a private group of companies, Peel Group Ltd, in the early part of this century, in 2003. It controls, privately, 450 square miles of land around the river and significant strategic port facilities, but there is no formal mechanism for everyone to be involved in the management of that and to consider its wider impact.
Therefore, although the Clyde mission has been a welcome development in recent years—it has been led by the local authorities in the Glasgow city region and Argyll and Bute Council, and has been resourced with £1.5 million of investment to set up a strategic master plan—there could be further development in that respect.
My fundamental request to the committee is for it to consider how we can bring in the Clyde mission and the relevant local authorities, and to discuss how we can develop the mission’s accountability mechanisms. How do we put it on a more formalised footing? Can there be more representation? Can there be more formalised board meetings? Can it have a wider remit? Finally, can we build out from the Clyde mission and try to get back to something like the Clyde Port Authority of old, with a broader management plan for the river that feels visible and accountable?
I think that that is the essence of the petitioners’ request. This is not some esoteric concept; it is about going back to what we once had: a broader management structure that was very effective in managing the River Clyde and other rivers in Scotland.
Thank you very much, Mr Sweeney. That was a helpful exposition of some of the issues underpinning the petition.
Having heard from Mr Sweeney, do colleagues have any suggestions as to what we might do?
In 2019, the High Court of Bangladesh conferred legal personhood on the Turag River and, by extension, all rivers in Bangladesh. In the light of that, and in the light of what Mr Sweeney has said, I think that we should keep the petition open. It would be good to write to the Glasgow city region to seek its views on the actions that are called for in the petition and to get information on the work that is being done to deliver the Clyde mission.
I am very grateful to Mr Sweeney for his most informative introduction and for giving us the interesting background to the history of the Clyde, which has a place in the hearts of many Glaswegians.
I originally hailed from Glasgow, my grandfather won a medal for swimming the Clyde and I used to be the cox to my father’s team of four oarsmen, who were called the “Senior Argonauts”. They certainly were very senior. As the cox, I managed to steer them into the river bank on many an occasion. We never needed to be rescued by George Parsonage, though, who was the riverman and who for 50 years rescued people from the Clyde. He saved so many lives; indeed, he used to say, “If there were a notch in my oar for every rescue I carried out, there’d be nae oar.”
However, irrelevant personal reflections aside, I just wanted to convey that I think that we all have an affection for the River Clyde, and many of the arguments towards the end of Mr Sweeney’s remarks about how it can better be cherished, appreciated and protected are, I think, ones that we would all agree with. Therefore, rather than close the petition, we should explore how that could be done.
Without wanting to sound any discordant note, I should also say that it was in Glasgow 48 years ago that I studied the law of persons, and I have to point out that the river cannot be a person in law. Therefore, we can have sympathy with the petitioners’ aims, but the means by which they seek to give effect to them would not, I think, really fit with Scots law—and, in saying that, I pay all my respects to other countries that have taken a different view on that matter. There could be some new form of body—after all, the Glasgow Humane Society had a role, the Clyde mission has a role and other bodies have been mentioned. A new charity could be established if that was felt necessary. That would be a more orthodox manner of pursuing aims that we might all agree are worthy ones.
I think that those remarks were very nicely rounded and put. I am not sure that the petition’s specific aim is something that we can deliver, but we could pursue the underlying issues that it raises in the way that has been suggested this morning. Are colleagues content to proceed on that basis?
Members indicated agreement.
I thank Mr Sweeney for assisting us in coming to that determination. We will keep the petition open—the petitioners in the gallery can be assured of that—and we will seek the information that has been requested, as suggested.
Non-medical Aesthetic Injectors (Regulation) (PE2137)
That brings us to the last of our new petitions this morning. PE2137, on fair regulation for non-medical aesthetic injectors, which has been lodged by Jordan Morrison of Mr Skulpt Aesthetics Ltd, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to introduce an aesthetics licensing scheme to ensure that non-medical practitioners meet training and safety standards.
The petition argues that a complete ban on aesthetic injectors risks driving treatments underground, where unregulated and untrained individuals could operate without oversight, which would significantly increase the risks to public safety. The petitioner states that, by contrast, regulation would mandate accredited training, on-going education and adherence to strict safety protocols, thereby ensuring that injectors had the necessary knowledge to perform procedures responsibly.
The SPICe briefing explains that, currently, the only clinics that are regulated are those where qualified registered health professionals work; they are registered and inspected by Healthcare Improvement Scotland. A review of the regulation of cosmetic interventions recognised that, because many procedures are not fully covered by existing regulatory frameworks, anyone can purchase and administer products, despite the potential for significant harm.
The Scottish Government consulted on the regulation of non-surgical procedures that pierce or penetrate the skin in 2020, and the analysis was published in 2022, with the Scottish Government indicating that it might introduce a licensing scheme for all practitioners who carry out such work. However, that did not happen.
In its response to the petition, the Scottish Government states that its most recent consultation, which closed on 14 February, builds on the 2020 consultation by putting forward more detailed proposals for what further regulation could look like. It also states that the consultation does not propose a ban on non-healthcare professional practitioners performing injections of Botox or dermal fillers; instead, it is proposed that certain procedures should be undertaken in a premises regulated by Healthcare Improvement Scotland, and that they should be undertaken by a trained practitioner working under the supervision of an appropriate healthcare professional, who would be available to prescribe any prescription-only medicines that might be required in the procedure or to support the management of any complications.
The Government will confirm any plans for legislation that might be required once the consultation responses have been analysed.
We have all been made aware, through the media, of one or two quite distressing examples of this issue manifesting itself. Do colleagues have any suggestions as to how we might proceed?
I know that my colleague Stuart McMillan has done a lot of work on the issue, too.
I think that we should keep the petition open and write to the Scottish Government to seek a timeline for the publication of its consultation analysis and its work to bring forward regulation. We should also ask for an assessment of how its proposed groupings for procedures and the suggestion that Botox and dermal filler procedures be restricted to premises regulated by Healthcare Improvement Scotland would impact aesthetics businesses.
I think that that is a very sensible suggestion. If there are no other suggestions, are we content to proceed on that basis?
Members indicated agreement.
We will keep the petition open and proceed on the basis that has been suggested.
To those of you who have been enjoying the proceedings so much, I am afraid to say that that brings us to the conclusion of our meeting. Our next meeting will take place on 19 March. I thank everyone for their participation and for joining us today, and I formally close the meeting.
Meeting closed at 10:43.Air ais
Continued Petitions