Chamber and committees

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.

As 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.

Our next continued petition, PE2084, which was lodged by Randall Graeme Kilgour Foggie, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to amend the Burial and Cremation (Scotland) Act 2016 to allow alkaline hydrolysis, accelerated composting and other more eco-friendly methods of disposal of human cadavers.

We had a fairly grisly conversation about this when we last considered the petition on 15 May 2024 when we agreed to write to the Scottish Government.

Members will recall that the Government consulted on alkaline hydrolysis regulations and found that 84 per cent of respondents support the introduction of regulations to allow alkaline hydrolysis. The development of the regulations is taking place, but no definitive date is set for the regulations to be laid in the Parliament. Do members have any comments or suggestions for action?

It seems that, in this instance, public opinion and the Government accept the case for the disposal of human cadavers using alkaline hydrolysis. Regulations are being drafted, so we need to decide whether we feel that we want to keep the petition open until we see those regulations, or whether we can close the petition, content that the Government and public opinion seem to be in support and regulations are forthcoming. Does the committee have a preference?

Yes.

The committee does not pursue an individual case. We pursue a principle.

What might we do, Mr Ewing, do you think?

Are our colleagues content that we close the petition for the reasons that Mr Ewing gave?

Members indicated agreement.

Property Factors (PE2006)

Hell must have frozen over—I never thought that I would live to see the day that you said that, Mr Ewing.

In Mr Ewing’s paean of praise to his Green colleague Maggie Chapman, who called for the petition to remain open, I think that he makes an important point that we could write to the Scottish Grocers Federation. At the moment, I suppose that the issue that Mr Ewing raised is too anecdotal to draw to the attention of the Scottish Government, and it might be better to first see whether we get something more formal from the Scottish Grocers Federation.

Are we content to keep the petition open on that basis—and to advise Maggie Chapman that the petition has been kept open on the motion of Fergus Ewing?

Members indicated agreement.

That is also a welcome suggestion. I have to say that I was unaware of the programme in Italy, so I think that it would be useful to have some further information on it.

Obviously, this is an issue that has resonance for all of us here in Parliament, given the loss of one of our staffing colleagues.

That brings us to PE2071. I apologise, as I have quite a long narrative to deliver at this point—I will do my best. The petition, which was lodged by Dr Sally Witcher, is on protecting people from airborne infections in health and social care settings, and we last considered it on 17 April 2024. It calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to improve air quality in health and social care settings through addressing ventilation, air filtration and sterilisation; to reintroduce routine mask wearing in those settings, particularly of respiratory masks; to reintroduce routine Covid testing; to ensure that staff manuals fully cover the prevention of airborne infection; to support ill staff to stay at home; and to provide public health information on the use of respiratory masks and high-efficiency particulate air—HEPA—filtration against airborne infections.

We were hoping to be joined by our colleague Jackie Baillie. Unfortunately, however, parliamentary business elsewhere means that she is not, after all, able to do so.

When we last considered the petition, we agreed to write to the Scottish Government, the Royal College of Nursing, the Royal College of Physicians, Scottish Care, the Health and Social Care Alliance Scotland, which is known as the ALLIANCE, and the Care Inspectorate. We have received responses to all of our correspondence, as well as a submission from the petitioner. Members will note the considerable volume of evidence that has been provided to the committee, which is included with your meeting papers.

We asked the Scottish Government for information about its reviews of information sources and decisions relating to the pause in or withdrawal of Covid-19 guidance. Its response sets out that the latest review on the extended use of face masks and face coverings guidance across health and social care settings occurred between March and April 2023. The agreed outcome of that review was to withdraw the Government’s extended guidance, which took effect on 16 May 2023.

On routine testing, a review was conducted in June 2023, which recommended pausing routine testing in health, social care and prison settings. The recommendation was implemented in August 2023. A further review, in March 2024, recommended ending routine testing for care home residents discharged from hospitals or hospices, with implementation expected by summer last year.

The Scottish Government’s response highlights the on-going data gathering and monitoring of respiratory infection levels and their impact. The submission states that, if the data gathered through that routine surveillance indicated a need to consider enhanced public health mitigations, that recommendation would be offered to the Scottish Government to consider.

The RCN highlighted its respiratory risk assessment toolkit, which aids local decision making on the level of personal protective equipment—PPE—required to protect staff while at work.

A number of points were raised in the written responses. They covered the need to balance the rights of those receiving care with the needs of staff, concerns from vulnerable people about their safety and inclusion in decision making about their care, staff health and wellbeing, and the need for capital funding to deliver improved ventilation across the national health service estate.

The response from the ALLIANCE states that many vulnerable people

“are not reassured that the removal of protections is safe or that they are considered in decision-making ... This unequal partnership in care, where people are not involved in decision-making regarding how their care is delivered, disempowers individuals and does not recognise their expertise in their own health.”

The petitioner’s written submission states that antimicrobial resistance in healthcare associated infections Scotland will not engage with wider stakeholders and that Scottish ministers are “nowhere to be seen.” She asks, “Where is public accountability?”

The petitioner highlights that, in July last year, Covid-19 infection peaked at its highest level since 2022, demonstrating that Covid is not in a calmer phase. The submission highlights a survey of nursing professionals, which found that 58 per cent of respondents would welcome more Covid-19 prevention measures in their workplaces, and 40 per cent reported having had Covid-19 in the summer of 2024. Of those, 21 per cent had attended work while infected with the virus. Many of them felt pressured to come to work with Covid-19 and felt discouraged from testing themselves and patients.

Lastly, the committee asked the Care Inspectorate how “adequate and suitable” ventilation is defined in practice and how it assesses and enforces ventilation standards. Its response points to the health and social standards, which include three standards that relate to ventilation. The standards are incorporated into the inspection methodology in order to inform scrutiny and quality improvement support.

The Care Inspectorate’s submission also explains that it expects services to ensure there is natural ventilation wherever possible and supports the implementation of good infection protection control practice. Where services are not operating at the expected standard, the Care Inspectorate supports improvement and can impose extra registration conditions, serve formal improvement notices and cancel registration if an improvement notice is not complied with.

The response highlights that prolonged use of face masks can inhibit communication, particularly for people who are living with dementia and communication difficulties, and can be detrimental to wellbeing. However, it states that face masks should be worn when staff think that there is a risk or if the person being cared for expresses a wish for their carer to do so.

I apologise for the long summation, but we wrote to quite a number of people and received comprehensive responses. In the light of all that I have said, do colleagues have any suggestions for action?

We can do that. However, Mr Ewing is correct—the petitioner has made a comprehensive series of specific points in their latest submission, which we could condense into a series of questions to put to the minister, and then see what response we obtain. Similarly, we can write to NHS Scotland to highlight issues in relation to the requests of staff.

As there are no other suggestions, are we content to keep the petition open and pursue those points?

Members indicated agreement.