Chamber and committees

I appreciate your comment about the situation regarding Germany’s decriminalisation model, but that is a slightly different case. I believe that Ireland’s model is probably more similar to what you are proposing, and I note that Ireland has not seen a reduction in trafficking, and I am very concerned that, if we do not address the core issues that drive people into sexual exploitation, such as addiction, poverty, issues with immigration status and the organised crime networks that abuse women, your bill will not achieve what you want it to.

I am aware of the time, but I have a final question. How will exploited and trafficked women be able to access healthcare, for example, through the statutory right to assistance and support that you have set out?

Thank you for giving evidence today; it is very helpful.

We recently had an informal chat and you said that the proposals for the bill would tackle sexual exploitation and human trafficking, as we have discussed today. The real concern that you have about that shone through to me. Your bill proposes to reduce demand, but I cannot see any evidence that the provisions in the bill will break the criminal supply chain. Can you talk about any data that you have on the number of people who are being trafficked and forced into exploitation?

You have not included that in the bill’s cost summary. Is that because it is up to the UK Government to fund it?

That might sound green because it is coming from a Green spokesperson, but what you are saying is not green whatsoever. A land management plan would not be retrospective in that situation. The Oxygen Conservation company would not suddenly ask for such a plan, because it has already bought the land and is already planting trees and culling goats. The goat meat is in the butcher’s shop. That is how far the company has gone, because it thought that that was what the community wanted.

I do not think that the issue is really about goats, though. There might be a bit of giggling about the fact that I am being passionate about wild goats, but my point speaks entirely to the fact that grants from the Scottish Government have gone to an offshore investment company that is creating very few jobs and has upset 12,000 people. We need to look at these things very carefully, because I do not think that relying on the investment principles works.

Yes, and that would be expected for goats that are, for example, of a certain age or injured, but not to the extent of this cull. The company wanted to begin a cull that was set to reduce the number of wild goats from 138 to 20. The member might be interested to know that the media release from the Wild Goat Conservation Group today said that the purpose of the cull was to satisfy requirements that had to be met before the Scottish Government would give grants to the rewilding company to plant trees on its hill ground. The cull would result in quite a serious difference in the number of wild goats. Does that answer your question?

The local community says that the goats embody the very spirit of our hills and that they are a living relic of Scottish clan crofting culture, and yet, despite their importance, wild goats have no legal protection in Scotland. The Government has stated that it has

“no plans to provide full legal protected status for primitive goats, or feral goats”.

That lack of protection has left them vulnerable and their future increasingly uncertain. My amendment seeks to ensure that we have a transparent discussion about the purpose, ethics and community impacts of natural capital investments. It would embed community voices in the decision-making process and help to ensure that investment in our natural environment is guided by clear ethical principles.

I move amendment 478.

I think that Bob Doris is talking about something entirely different, and being very childish politically, because the issue is about a specific situation in Newcastleton that pertains to individuals there. It concerns a company called Oxygen Conservation, which has bought 13,000 acres of natural moorland habitat and has been culling goats. The purchase was grant funded by the Scottish Government, so where is its oversight of all the land that was purchased with its funding?

I know. I am letting the question hang, Mr Doris, because that is the question that you should be asking your Government.

I intend to press amendment 478, to test the room on what I believe are quite strong points.

I have set out why I believe that the natural investment framework should be encompassed in the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill. The cabinet secretary said that Oxygen Conservation, which is the company that has bought 13,000 acres of moorland habitat, should be guided by the six principles for responsible investment in natural capital. If that is true, it should also adhere to those principles. The Government should lean on the company to desist from culling the goats, which is against those principles. The Government guidelines are clearly not working and it needs to introduce something stronger.

The bill’s provisions on natural capital investment could be expanded even further. Why would we want people who invest in Scotland to run riot, affecting issues that communities are passionate about, and ignoring really thorny issues, just so that they can meet the net zero targets? That would not be right.