Hansard

The first new petition is PE2130, which has been lodged by James A Mackie. It calls on the Scottish 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.

As Mr Mackie notes in the background information that he provided, the tail is a vital part of a horse’s anatomy that serves several functions. The tail assists in temperature regulation, is a mechanism for balance by subtly influencing the alignment of the horse’s hind, deters pests and is a vital communication centre for relaying messages about the horse’s mood, health, energy and locomotion.

The SPICe briefing notes that horses are protected animals under the Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Act 2006, which includes general offences such as causing a protected animal unnecessary suffering and carrying out a prohibited procedure on an animal. The act permits the Scottish ministers to make codes of practice for protecting animals, and the “Code of Practice for the Welfare of Equidae” was published in 2009. I note that the code does not include anything specific on tail hair removal.

The petitioner and others, such as Animal Concern, suggest that there are alternatives to removing tail hair, such as braiding or bandaging, which keep the hair out of harm’s way and can be undone easily, allowing the tail to function naturally.

In response to the petition, the Minister for Agriculture and Connectivity states that the Scottish Government does not support or recommend the complete removal of a horse’s tail hair. However, the Government is of the view that a ban on the removal of hair from horse tails would be an unnecessary and disproportionate response. Instead, it suggests that the issue should be addressed in updated equine guidance, and it notes that new guidance is currently being developed.

We have received a submission from Mr Mackie in which he responds to the minister’s comments. He notes that, as guidelines are not enforceable, legislation is required. The submission includes quotes from a House of Lords debate that took place in 1938 ahead of the introduction of the tail docking and nicking ban, and Mr Mackie suggests that the arguments that were made in that debate are just as relevant today.

The Scottish Government has given a view on its likely course of action, and I doubt that there is much time left for primary legislation in the current parliamentary session. What are colleagues inclined to suggest?

There is a rush of enthusiasm to identify how we might proceed. Do you have any views, Mr Ewing?