Seòmar agus comataidhean

PE2130, which was lodged by James A Mackie, calls on the 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. We previously considered the petition in March, when we agreed to write to the Government to seek further information on the work to update the “Code of Practice for the Welfare of Equidae”, including timescales for completing the update and how the petitioner and other stakeholders might contribute to the process.

In the Scottish Government’s response, which was sent to the committee in April, it was stated that the new equine code was being drafted by stakeholders and that the Government was confident that a

“sufficiently wide-ranging and varied base of equine expertise”

was already contributing to the development of the new code. The Government anticipated that the code would be published by late summer, but there is no evidence that that happened.

In addition, in their submissions, the petitioner and the charity Animal Concern suggest that a number of organisations are supportive of a ban. They also point to the decision that was taken by the Great Yorkshire Show to ban all horses with shaved tails from any competition or exhibition.

Do members have any comments or suggestions for action? Given that we were promised that something would be published by the end of the summer, which did not happen, it might be appropriate for us to keep the petition open a little bit longer and to write to the Minister for Agriculture and Connectivity to ask for a progress report and a rather more clear timeline for the publication of the Scottish Government’s equine code.

I have just had a note to say that the Westminster Government’s budget has been completely leaked ahead of it being delivered this afternoon.

PE2135, on implementing the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights—the ICCPR—in Scottish legislation, was lodged by Henry Black Ferguson on behalf of wecollect.scot. As we consider the petition, it would be appropriate to acknowledge the recent passing of the petitioner. The committee will be aware that Mr Ferguson was dedicated to this particular cause and understands that his campaigning work will continue through his colleagues and friends at Respect Scottish Sovereignty. We are grateful to Mr Ferguson for the time that he took in pursuing with the Scottish Parliament this petition on a matter that was of great importance to him and on which, in fact, he wrote to the committee not that long ago.

The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to ensure that, prior to the next Holyrood parliamentary election, the ICCPR is given full legal effect in the devolved lawmaking process.

We last considered the petition on 2 April, when we agreed to write to the Cabinet Secretary for Constitution, External Affairs and Culture. Members will recall that the national task force on human rights leadership considered whether existing treaties should be incorporated into Scots law through the Scottish Government’s new human rights bill, and it did not recommend that the ICCPR be incorporated.

In his response to the committee, the cabinet secretary reiterates that the Scottish Parliament can give effect only to the provisions of international treaties that fall within its powers and responsibilities. That means that the incorporation of the ICCPR would not extend the Parliament’s powers, nor would it allow the Parliament or the Scottish Government to do anything that would have previously been beyond devolved competence. The cabinet secretary also notes that the majority of the rights in the covenant have already been given domestic legal effect through the Human Rights Act 1998.

The petitioner provided two written submissions, the first of which sets out information that he felt should have been included in the introductory remarks when we last considered the petition. The second written submission states the petitioner’s view that, because there was no notion of devolved competence prior to the Scotland Act 1998, any argument that implementation of the covenant might be beyond devolved competence is meaningless. It states that, as the UK ratified the covenant in 1976 and devolved its implementation through the Scotland Act 1998, the next step is implementation by a majority of MSPs.

Notwithstanding the argument that is made in the petition, the evidence that we have received from the cabinet secretary and the Scottish Government, as well as the information that is set out in the Scottish Parliament information centre briefing, is clear on the issue. Although the Scottish Parliament has the power to legislate to implement international agreements such as the covenant, that does not extend the powers of the Parliament to allow it to take action that is beyond devolved competence.

The committee has also received a written submission from an individual, Ewan Kennedy, which expresses his view that the covenant is a long-established cornerstone of the principles that are necessary to support modern democracies.

In the light of the firm direction from the Scottish Government, which is supported by the Parliament’s independent research body, do colleagues have any suggestions as to how we might proceed?

The final continued petition for consideration today is PE2140, lodged by James Bruce, which calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to introduce a new parking badge to assist women in being able to get in and out of their cars while they are pregnant and in the initial months after their pregnancy.

We last considered the petition in April, when we agreed to write to the Scottish Retail Consortium. Its response states that most stores located in high streets or retail parks do not have their own customer parking, which, instead, is often provided by local authorities, privately operated car parks or the retail park landlord.

I remind members that, in the initial response to the petition, Transport Scotland stated that there were no plans to create separate concessionary badges or to widen the automatic eligibility criteria for the blue badge scheme, which is designed for disabled people. The Government has also informed us that decisions to offer alternative parking concessions for off-street car parks sit either with the relevant authority or with landowners. We pursued the Scottish Retail Consortium as a last resort, but do colleagues have any suggestions for action?

Thank you, Mr Torrance. Do colleagues agree? I think that we were on a bit of a last-resort pass by writing to the Scottish Retail Consortium, given the previous advice that we received. It was worth a punt but, unfortunately, it has not really taken the aims of the petition any further forward. Are we content to support Mr Torrance’s recommendation?

Members indicated agreement.

Item 3 is consideration of new petitions. As always, I highlight that, before we consider a new petition, we initially seek the view of the Scottish Government. We also receive a briefing from SPICe, the impartial research service in the Parliament. That is because, historically, those were the first two things that we would ask for in order to pursue a petition, so we have shortcut that process.

At the risk of colleagues having to keep up, I will suggest that, given that Mr McArthur is with us and that the petition that he is interested in was going to be considered a little later, we bring it forward to now, in the expectation that he has productive hours to spend on other matters in the Parliament.

Thank you very much, Mr McArthur. There is an issue here. Mr Torrance?

That is a powerful point and a perfectly reasonable one for us to inquire about. We will keep the petition open and hope that we can get a response that would allow us to at least consider the cabinet secretary’s response to that point. Are we agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

Thank you, Mr McArthur.

Yes, indeed.