Chamber and committees

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.

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)

That brings us to agenda item 3, which is consideration of new petitions. As I always say for the benefit of those who are joining us online to hear about a petition that is being considered for the first time, before a petition is considered by the committee, we take advice on it from the Scottish Parliament information centre, which is the Parliament’s independent research body, and we ask the Scottish Government for a general initial view on the petition. We do those things because, historically, they were the first recommendations of the committee and waiting for that information simply added delay into the process. We therefore get it in advance.

The next petition is PE2127, on the development of a new digital connectivity plan for the Highlands and Islands. This is the first example of a poacher turned gamekeeper in the public petitions process, because the petition has been lodged by John Robert Erskine, who was previously the committee’s media adviser and joins us in the public gallery.

The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to develop a new digital connectivity plan for the Highlands and Islands that aims to address digital infrastructure gaps, improve mobile internet coverage, establish public-private partnerships and support economic growth, education and healthcare.

The SPICe briefing highlights Ofcom’s “Connected Nations Scotland Report”, which was published in 2024. The report found that, as of July 2024, 62 per cent of residential properties in Scotland had access to full-fibre networks—an increase of 9 percentage points from September 2023. However, the briefing notes that, although 89 per cent of Midlothian and Glasgow city residences have full-fibre connection, only 14 per cent of residences in Orkney and 11 per cent of residences in Shetland do.

The Scottish Government’s response to the petition highlights Scotland’s digital strategy, which aims to ensure

“that no one is left behind in the digital world and that geography should not be a barrier to getting online.”

It highlights that the national strategy for economic transformation 10-year plan includes a

“commitment to provide an efficient and resilient digital infrastructure in Scotland.”

The submission states:

“over 19,000 premises now have access to faster broadband connections thanks to the R100 North contract”.

The Scottish Government has also worked with Building Digital UK on project gigabit to prepare a regional procurement exercise that will cover more than 13,500 eligible premises in Orkney and Shetland.

However, the petitioner believes that the Scottish Government’s actions

“fall short of addressing the fundamental issues of digital exclusion, inequality, and slow delivery in rural Scotland.”

In his written submission, Mr Erskine highlights that Scotland has

“the highest rate of 4G ‘not spots’ in the UK”

and the

“lowest rural residential superfast broadband coverage in the UK.”

There are one or two of those 4G not-spots in my constituency on the south side of Glasgow, which everybody imagines must be incredibly well connected, but such areas exist. The petitioner states that connectivity issues are felt “more acutely” in communities in the Highlands and Islands and that

“that’s why this petition is asking for the Scottish Government to provide a dedicated, new digital connectivity strategy for the region.”

Our colleague Rhoda Grant MSP, who had hoped to join us this morning but is unable to do so, has provided a written submission outlining her support for the petition. Her written submission stresses the importance of digital connectivity and highlights the

“increasing reliance on online services to deliver basic facilities.”

Her submission states that good connectivity is, inevitably, “inherently linked” to attracting workers and families to the Highlands and Islands in a digital age.

Do members have any comments or suggestions about what we might do?

We will keep the petition open on that basis.