Justice 1 Committee, 03 Sep 2002

Meeting date: Tuesday, September 3, 2002

Official Report 252KB pdf

---

Petitions

Item 5 on the agenda covers the petitions that are before us. I welcome Cathie Craigie to the committee. I would like to go ahead and swap agenda items 4 and 5, with the committee's leave.

Members indicated agreement.

I know that James Douglas-Hamilton has another engagement. I note that the petitioners behind PE29, Mr and Mrs Dekker, are here.

---

Road Traffic Accidents<br />(PE29, PE55, PE299, PE331, PE111)

I ask members to refer to petitions PE29, PE55, PE299, PE331 and PE111, and to paper J1/02/28/8, which is entitled "Dangerous Driving and the Law". Members will recall that, on the committee's behalf, I wrote to the Minister for Justice about this subject on 15 May. The response was sent on 19 June and is contained in the papers that members have in front of them.

A number of options are presented. One is to write back to the minister or to the Lord Advocate, seeking additional information such as time scales for the work of the steering group on the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions report—we now have that report. Another is to wait for an announcement on the outcomes of the work of the steering group on the DTLR report and consider the petitions again at that stage. The third option is to copy the responses from the Minister for Justice and the Lord Advocate to the petitioners and to end our consideration of the petitions at this stage. Before I express my views I invite the views of other committee members.

There is a strong case for writing to the minister or the Lord Advocate for further information. Also, we could deal with the matter more comprehensively if we waited to hear the steering group's considerations.

I agree.

We should also consider the time scales.

I, too, agree with Lord James. We have been pursuing the issue for some time; it has been drawn out while we waited for the results of a piece of research. We had those results at the start of the year, but now a steering group has been set up. When we write to the minister, we should ask whether the matter could be expedited. It seems to drag on and on. If we are told that the steering group will sit for about a year, it might be quicker to do something ourselves rather than to wait. However, I am happy to wait if the time scale is reasonable. We need to impress on the minister the need for concrete action as opposed to the setting up of more groups.

I endorse what Michael Matheson said. We certainly do not want to end our consideration of the matter, because we all feel strongly about it. As Michael said, it is time that the matter was brought to a conclusion. We must hear from the minister about time scales so that we know that something will happen in the near future. We must not be put off for months. How long have we been considering this? It seems interminable.

The original—

Could you speak through the chair so that we do not have free chat?

We started on this away back in the old Justice and Home Affairs Committee, so it has been going on for some time.

We should also know whom the members of the steering group will be. Let us have more fingers in the pie and let us ask about the time scales. We were firm in our recommendations and, as Michael says, this has been going on since the early days of the Justice and Home Affairs Committee. There is a hint in the air that the issue might be kicked into touch and that must not happen.

If members are content with the suggestion, we will write to the minister and send a copy to the petitioners. The Lord Advocate must also receive a copy of the letter. We will keep the petitioners advised of any other correspondence; they can be assured that the committee is not prepared simply to pay lip service to the matter—we are seriously engaged in it.

Members indicated agreement.

It will be for the minister to progress the matter.

---

Clydesdale Horses (Couping) (PE347)

The next petition is on the couping of Clydesdale horses. Maureen Macmillan has spoken to Sylvia Jackson.

Yes—I am very concerned about petition PE347. Sylvia Jackson is indisposed at present—she has had an operation and cannot be here today—but she spoke to me at some length this morning because she is concerned that couping is still happening. People who are in a position to know tell us that couping goes against animal welfare. However, the Clydesdale Horse Society contests that.

Sylvia Jackson says that, if we try to make couping illegal, the problem of the definition of couping will arise. People who use the practice will say that they do not actually coup. It is therefore suggested that, in order to prevent harm to horses, it might be better to ensure that vets are present when such shoeing is undertaken. We should not just note the petition and take no further action; we must examine the matter in more detail.

It is regrettable that the petitioner, Mr Kenneth Mitchell, who was a registered farrier—it is interesting that he was in the business—has died since he submitted the petition. Mr Jim Sharp is now the primary contact on the petition. Mr Sharp has sent a further paper, which is numbered J1/02/28/14, to ask the committee to take action to ban couping. I add that because we leapt in with the proposal that Sylvia Jackson has made through Maureen Macmillan.

I am slightly reluctant for couping to be made an offence, although the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill might offer space to do that, because it deals with miscellaneous issues.

I endorse what Maureen Macmillan said on Sylvia Jackson's behalf. Perhaps we should consider ensuring that vets are present if couping is to take place, although I am not sure about the practicalities of that. We need more guidance from people who are concerned about animal welfare, particularly vets, who might have first-hand experience of the practice. Perhaps the British Equine Veterinary Association, which I presume is fairly expert on the welfare of horses, should be invited to give us its views on ways in which to address the matter.

I support the idea of obtaining evidence from veterinary organisations, because the evidence that we have conflicts. Expert information would help us enormously in finding the best way forward.

I, too, endorse that. I do not want the issue to slip off the desk. I declare an interest as a member of the cross-party animal welfare group. I do not know whether a Scottish equine veterinary association exists—the British Equine Veterinary Association is mentioned in our committee papers. That association has expressed concerns and sent detailed information to the Public Petitions Committee, so we can produce papers about that organisation's views.

As convener, I will write a letter to the association and copy it to the Public Petitions Committee. The letter will contain the suggestion that Maureen Macmillan made on Sylvia Jackson's behalf and will ask for the association's views not only on the practice of couping, but on the practicalities, propriety and usefulness of a vet's presence during couping. On the surface, couping seems to be a pointless exercise that ought to end.

I, too, am a member of the cross-party group on animal welfare.

I knew that.

It is all coming out now.

We are all animal lovers here.

Do members agree to that suggestion? We will make that part of the normal correspondence and send a copy to Sylvia Jackson.

Should we appoint a reporter to investigate the matter?

That idea crossed my mind, but I wonder whether to do so is important at this stage. We must first obtain a response from the British Equine Veterinary Association, then we can form a view. I am advised that a reporter must be a member of the committee. Given our work load, it is unfortunate that we cannot appropriate somebody, but I have been told that the rules do not allow for that.

We might also send a copy of the correspondence to the cross-party group on animal welfare, which has dealt with the issue. We will ensure that all parts of the operation that have an interest are informed.