Seòmar agus comataidhean

Does the committee agree to close the petition on the basis suggested?

Members indicated agreement.

Do members agree to keep the petition open and write to the minister as Mr Torrance suggests?

Members indicated agreement.

PE2135, lodged by Henry Black Ferguson on behalf of wecollect.scot, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to give the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights full legal effect in the devolved law making process prior to the next Holyrood parliamentary election.

The SPICe briefing explains that the international covenant was adopted in 1966 and ratified by the UK in 1976. Many of the rights that are set out in the ICCPR are reflected in international agreements and have been incorporated into UK human rights-related legislation.

The Scottish Government’s response to the petition states that it is committed to a new human rights bill, which will incorporate further international human rights standards into Scots law. The Scottish Government has developed and consulted on proposals to give effect to the recommendations from the national task force for human rights leadership, which comprised a range of experts and stakeholders, such as the Scottish Human Rights Commission. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights was not among the treaties that the task force recommended for incorporation, although it did recommend that further consideration be given to restating the rights that are contained in the Human Rights Act 1998.

The submission explains that when incorporating international treaties into domestic law, the Scottish Parliament can only give effect to provisions within its powers and responsibilities. That route cannot be used to effectively extend the Parliament’s powers by claiming that the incorporated international treaty provisions now allow the Parliament or Scottish Government to do anything that would previously have been beyond the Parliament’s devolved competence.

The petitioner’s submission questions the Scottish Government’s position and states that the issue of devolved competence is not relevant to the covenant’s full implementation. He believes that the Scottish Government’s submission seeks to restrict and undermine the sovereignty of the Scottish people.

Do colleagues have any comments or suggestions for action?

That concludes the public part of our meeting. We will next assemble on 23 April. We will now move into private session to consider agenda items 5 and 6.

Alasdair Graham, this is your debut—we should properly acknowledge your contribution at the start.

You need to ask the cabinet secretary a question, Mr Ewing.

That is the one.

We are also joined by Emma Harper, who has an interest in PE1610, on the A75, and PE1659, on the A77.

Members who join us have no automatic right to ask questions, but I will invite them to follow on and ask questions at the end, if everybody is agreed. It has been my practice to encourage as much active participation and engagement from MSPs on petitions in which they have a constituency interest. I am less interested if they are coming as party spokesmen, but if they are here because of a constituency interest, I am keen to hear from them.

Cabinet secretary, in the light of all that, I understand that you would like to say something to us in advance of our beginning our questions. Rather than the meeting becoming a free-for-all, one colleague will lead a discussion about each of the different petitions, and I know that you will bring in your colleagues as and when you think that would be most helpful.

PE1976 is on backdating council tax discounts for people with dementia to the date of general practitioner certification. The petition, which was lodged by Derek James Brown, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to require council tax discounts to be backdated to the date when a person was certified as being severely mentally impaired, where they then go on to qualify for a relevant benefit.

We previously considered the petition on 12 June 2024, when we agreed to write to the Scottish Government. The response from the Scottish Government states that removing the requirement for a person to be entitled to a qualifying benefit in order to be disregarded from council tax would require changes to legislation. The Scottish Government was due to explore the issue further in partnership with local government at what was then to be the next meeting of the joint working group on council tax reform at the end of summer 2024.

I think that we were quite impressed by the petition when we first heard about it, as it raises legitimate issues, and I do not think that we have had an update on the outcome of that conference in 2024. Do colleagues have any suggestions for how we might proceed?

PE2021, which was lodged by David Peter Buckland and Graham Charlesworth, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to clarify the definition of protected animals, as contained in the Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Act 2006 and the associated guidance, to ensure that the feral sheep on St Kilda are covered by that legislation, enabling interventions to reduce the risk of winter starvation and the consequential suffering of the sheep.

We previously considered the petition on 1 May 2024, when we agreed to write to the Scottish Government. The response from the Government states that it

“does not consider there is a need to clarify the definition of protected animals in the Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Act 2006 and associated guidance.”

It remains the Government’s view that the sheep on St Kilda are

“protected by the Wild Mammals (Protection) Act 1996, in the same way as any unowned and unmanaged population of wild deer.”

We had requested a copy of the June 2009 communication between the Scottish Government and the National Trust for Scotland, but the Government has been unable to locate that document, which was likely to have been deleted from its system in 2019, in line with its retention and disposal policy.

We have received two submissions from the petitioners, the first of which comments on submissions from the National Trust for Scotland and the Scottish Government and refers back to the passage of the 2006 act and the provision of detailed guidance to explain exactly which animals are protected under the legislation.

The petitioners make comparisons with similar legislation in England and Wales. There, the United Kingdom chief veterinary officer’s interpretation of animals

“of a kind commonly domesticated in the British Islands”

is such that Soay sheep found in Lundy, an island off the north coast of Devon, are considered to be feral sheep. That means that the sheep are protected under the equivalent legislation in England and Wales and have been subject to humane culling to control the population.

The petitioners’ second submission provides information on the various freedom of information requests that they have made. The responses have revealed that UNESCO has raised concerns that mismanagement of the sheep population on St Kilda could be adversely affecting the outstanding universal value of the world heritage site, which is recognised for its natural and cultural significance.

I would like to hear colleagues’ thoughts on how we might proceed. We can either have another go at this or take the view that we have run out of steam.

The Scottish Government is quite clear about what it intends to do, even though it appears that more is being done elsewhere. Given the Government’s clear view, I am not sure that there is more that the committee can do. Notwithstanding the importance of the issues that the petition has raised, are we of the view that there is nothing more that the committee can do, given the Government’s response?

Members indicated agreement.