Chamber and committees

Thank you, Jackie Baillie. I agree. In many respects, it seems ironic that we as a nation pride ourselves at times on the fact that we have resisted physical invasion for 1,000 years but it would appear that our natural habitat is the subject of a successful invasion by foreign species. At times, there seems to be lip-service acknowledgement of that but no concrete action. The statistic that you gave of 56 per cent of trees at the highest altitude being Sitka spruce is an example of that. Of course, we all saw that for ourselves.

I know that we have received warm words, but I wonder whether the committee feels, as Jackie Baillie does, that there is still room for us to pursue these issues.

Jackie Baillie’s testimony had a couple of specific suggestions that I think the committee would be happy to embrace.

Given the investment that we have made in the petition, it may end up being one that we consider to be suitable for a debate in the chamber at some point. A love of Scotland can extend very much into the natural habitat of our country, and the concern that the committee has felt has very much been given substance by what we have seen for ourselves.

Jackie Baillie said that Scottish Forestry could be overwhelmed and that the last thing that it is looking for is a sort of nature watch from the public. We are at the stage where non-native species are so prevalent that the battle could become a battle lost. Before it can be a battle won, it has to be a battle properly engaged in, and we are maybe not at that point.

Do we agree to keep the petition open and proceed on that basis?

Members indicated agreement.

As no one has any other comments, are we content with Mr Torrance’s suggestion?

Members indicated agreement.

I thank the petitioner, but I think that we have exhausted our ability to take forward the issues in the petition. However, it is always open to the petitioner, in due course, to come back with another petition if it does not appear that the way in which the Scottish Government is trying to progress the aims of the petition through the conversations that it is having with individual local authorities is producing results.

Yes. In fact, that came out of the discussion that we had. Some teachers were inured to it, but some still could not cope and did not know what best to do.

I thank Monica Lennon for her contribution.

One thing that you touched on and that I found particularly chilling was the gratuitous and brutal violence by appointment. We heard about young people as young as 12 who played on the vulnerable among their peer group and solicited their attendance at a site where they had set up others to film the violence that they then perpetrated. They left unconscious two of the people who we met, only for the police, as we understood it, to feel powerless because of the current expectation that people under the age of 25 will not be pursued. That removed any sense of a need for anonymity among the people who did the filming, who actually thrived on the notoriety that they gained from their actions. The whole thing was thoroughly dispiriting.

When we were there, we thought that meeting members of the Scottish Youth Parliament would be a way forward. I understand that a member of the SYP participated in a round-table evidence session with another committee and, although this issue was not the focus of that committee’s inquiry, they gave the impression that this is not an issue that the SYP has been pursuing or collecting information on. Nonetheless, as that is an opportunity that is open to us, we might, at some stage, want to meet a representative body of people who encompass all of Scotland and not necessarily just the areas that we have seen.

I wonder whether we might want to take further evidence from some of the organisations and public bodies that might be able to influence the process. That would involve evidence at a future committee meeting from researchers, Police Scotland—certainly—the Scottish Violence Reduction Unit, No Knives Better Lives and perhaps other youth representatives. Are there any other suggestions from committee members?

That is very helpful. We were minded to try to hear more from some young people, so, if that group were willing to participate, that would be of value.

I thank the members of the 6VT youth group in Edinburgh who we saw. It is held in a location that is quite central in Edinburgh—just off the Grassmarket—but I had no idea that it was there until we visited it. As I recall, it is on the grounds of the site of the home of Scotland’s first suffragette. It is definitely a safe haven where we saw young people growing in confidence, being able to draw on support and—I thought—maturing quickly as they worked together to tackle and combat the issues in their community. I commend them.

We might proceed on the basis that we hope to take evidence from various organisations that are relevant to the experience that we have had. We might come back to the Scottish Youth Parliament, or it might well be that Paul Sweeney’s suggestion of a group that could participate in giving evidence would be useful. Perhaps the committee would be content to delegate to me a discussion with the clerks on whether we have a round-table discussion or a formal evidence discussion. We can perhaps consider the merits of those and proceed accordingly. Does that meet with the committee’s approval?

Members indicated agreement.

The exhibition was called “Dying in the Margins”.

The next petition, 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 that is contained in the Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Act 2006 and associated guidance, to ensure that the feral sheep on St Kilda are covered by that legislation and to enable interventions to reduce the risk of winter starvation and the consequential suffering of the sheep.

I apologise—I have quite a long introduction.

The petitioners have told us that confusion over whether the sheep on St Kilda are considered to be livestock or wild animals is contributing to the unnecessary suffering and deaths of large numbers of the sheep population on the archipelago.

The SPICe briefing provides a helpful history of the sheep population on St Kilda. Research suggests that feral sheep have been present on the island of Soay since the bronze age. The briefing notes that, in 1931, the archipelago was sold to the Marquess of Bute, who subsequently bequeathed it to the National Trust for Scotland in 1957. The petitioners suggest that that means that the trust has ownership of the sheep and, therefore, responsibility for managing them.

In response to the petition, the Scottish Government stated its position that the St Kilda sheep should be regarded in the same way as unowned and unmanaged populations of wild deer and other wild animals. The response also sets out the Government’s view on how the definition of protected animals in the 2006 act applies to the St Kilda sheep. It notes that the definition applies only if and when sheep are gathered up for a particular procedure and that they are otherwise considered to be living in a wild state.

Guidance on the 2006 act allows for animals that live in the wild but whose behaviour, life cycle or physiology is altered by being under human control to be classed as protected animals. However, the Scottish Government’s view is that the sheep on St Kilda are an exception to that general guidance on the basis that they have adapted to live on St Kilda over many generations, so they are not dependent on humans in the same way that more recently escaped or released domesticated animals would be.

In response to the Scottish Government’s submission, the petitioners questioned whether the sheep are really “free to move anywhere” on such small islands, particularly as the population increases. The petitioners also highlighted the research of the historian Professor Andrew Fleming, which shows that inhabitants of St Kilda combined fowling with sheep management, which suggests that the sheep were domesticated 10,000 years ago and have been feral only for less than 100 years, when the last inhabitants of St Kilda left.

We have also received a submission from Alasdair Allan MSP, which details the action that he has taken on the issue and further highlights the petitioners’ concerns that the interpretation of St Kilda sheep as non-native animals means that researchers might have committed numerous offences during the St Kilda Soay sheep project’s triannual capture and release of the sheep population. Dr Allan has suggested that the policy on St Kilda sheep does not reflect best practice for the management of other animals in Scotland, and he reflected that, if the Scottish Government’s position is accepted, there might be a moral and a legal duty to manage the sheep population on St Kilda to avoid mass starvation events.

Members will note in our papers that requests to make submissions in relation to the petition have been received from the National Trust for Scotland, researchers from the St Kilda Soay sheep research project and OneKind, the animal welfare charity.

There is a lot to unpack in all of that. I apologise for the fairly detailed exposition, but that is what was required. Do members have any comments or suggestions? In the first instance, given that they have asked to contribute, we might wish to seek views from the organisations that I mentioned.