Chamber and committees

Apologies if you believe that I am not, cabinet secretary, but the minister is not here to defend what he wrote or to explain his views on the concerns that the committee or others have about amendment 35. Considering that the Scottish Government said that it would not amend the section 16AA licence, the proposals go against what the Government committed to.

I mean for shooting.

May I apologise, convener, if the cabinet secretary believes that to be disrespectful? I will describe it in a different way. The cabinet secretary has an opinion on the amendments, which are supported by the red squirrel group. The evidence that the group has provided to me is being undermined by the cabinet secretary’s explanation of an awareness campaign as being something “bureaucratic”. The pox virus is spreading and is causing huge issues in the south of Scotland. I am not sure whether the cabinet secretary is aware of the extent to which that is happening.

Amendments 284 to 286 offer various approaches to improving the protections for the ancient wild goat herd in Newcastleton and Langholm. These amendments were prompted by discussions with my constituents in Newcastleton, including the Wild Goat Conservation Trust, which has raised serious concerns about the preservation of its local herd. In February, plans to cull 85 per cent of the herd were announced—an action carried out during the breeding season, causing significant distress to the community. That ad hoc and unscientific approach poses an existential threat to the herd. The goats are not only ecologically important but of significant cultural and heritage value. I remind the committee that 13,000 local residents signed a petition calling for the goats’ protection.

The goats have inhabited the moorlands between Newcastleton and Langholm for centuries. They are fully wild and form part of the delicate ecology of those protected uplands. However, 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 or feral goats. The lack of protection has left that specific herd vulnerable and its future increasingly uncertain.

Section 9 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 gives the animals that are listed in schedule 5 protected status and makes it an offence to intentionally or recklessly kill, injure or take any wild animal listed in it. Amendment 284 would give the wild goat protected status by adding it to schedule 5 of the 1981 act.

As an alternative, amendment 285 would provide for the protection of wild goats and their habitat through the designation of a site of special scientific interest in Langholm and Newcastleton. That would not go as far as creating an offence but would outline the fact that wildlife, including goats, might be a consideration and are just as distinct as any other sub-population that is protected. The burnet moth is an example of that approach.

Amendment 286 would provide ministers with a regulation-making power to provide protection for Langholm and Newcastleton wild goats.

Amendments 291 to 293 were drafted following discussions with the Central Borders Red Squirrel Network, which aims to stop the decline of red squirrel populations in the Scottish Borders by containing or significantly slowing the progress of squirrel pox in the south of Scotland, and to improve conditions for viable red squirrel populations across Scotland. The population of grey squirrels, which is listed as one of the 100 worst invasive non-native species by the International Union for Conservation of Nature, is approaching 3 million, and the red population has fallen to around 287,000, with 75 per cent found in Scotland. My amendments aim to inform management interventions and to provide greater protections for red squirrels.

Amendment 291 would require a review of the squirrel pox virus, including the impact of the virus on red squirrels, the spread of the virus across Scotland and what action must be taken to tackle that. The amendment would allow for the review to be delegated to local authorities and NatureScot to work together to consider what action needs to be taken.

Amendment 292 would establish a red squirrel awareness campaign to promote awareness of the preservation and control of red squirrels and would require that ministers engage with relevant stakeholders when designating and implementing such a campaign.

Amendment 293 would require Scottish ministers to undertake a review of whether legislative change is required to further separate the provision for non-native species and non-native plants under the 1981 act. This amendment aims to separate the invasive grey squirrels from plants in terms of non-native species specification, with the aim of differentiating more explicitly the impacts of managing non-native animals and non-native plants.

The goats themselves are not feral—they are wild goats, which is why they are so unique. Their uniqueness is that they have been here for centuries. According to the conservation group, those British primitive goats are descended from goats that were brought to the British Isles by neolithic herdspeople more than 4,000 years ago. They are unique.

That is why this is so important. The conservation group is not against ensuring that older goats be controlled, because they must be. That is just the nature of things since the land sale has happened—Ms Villalba will be aware that Oxygen Conservation purchased some of the land, and Richard Stockdale has been making comments to that effect on some of Ms Villalba’s amendments. The conservation group is not against the control of goats, because they must be controlled, but it is supportive of the right method. My amendments would just give those goats a protected status, which would not have an impact on their control.

Moreover, other options exist to protect the habitat of the goat in relation to the regulation-making powers that the Scottish ministers could have. The cabinet secretary has options here, and I am sure that she will give us her opinion on how the three amendments that would ensure protection could be made possible.

That is irrelevant to my point. I am making the point that 4,000 jobs are reliant on game shooting in Scotland—

When I spoke to members of the Wild Goat Conservation Trust, they explained that, although schedule 5 to the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 does not include any non-native species, it was carefully worded so as not to preclude the possibility of doing so. In describing the animals and plants listed in the protecting provisions, the 1981 act uses the terms “principally” and “in general” in respect of those being indigenous to the UK. It is therefore entirely possible to use schedule 5 to refer to the goats as being “principally” and “in general” indigenous to the UK.

My short answer is that the Langholm and Newcastleton goats are non-native, as you have said. As such, they would be able to be listed in schedule 5. The conservation group and I have looked at the amendments carefully because I had lodged amendments to the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill, but they were not agreed to. We have looked at the issue intensely to work out how to get the amendments through to offer protection or to give the cabinet secretary or the ministers regulation-making powers to designate certain sites.

It is not about not controlling the goats but about ensuring that they are protected so that they are not indiscriminately wiped out as 85 per cent of the goat herd was, as I have stated. I hope that that answers the member’s question.

Saving Scotland’s Red Squirrels, the red squirrel conservation group, pointed out that, at present, its members are voluntarily going out to trap grey squirrels and humanely dispatch them to ensure that we control the spread of the squirrel pox virus. The virus is becoming a serious problem in the south of Scotland. I cannot remember the last time that I saw a red squirrel in the region; only small defined areas still provide a habitat for red squirrels without the presence of the grey squirrel population that is seriously wiping them out. The conservation group’s key point was that the situation is now getting to the stage at which it needs support to enable it to continue the good work that it has already been doing voluntarily.

If we are serious about preserving biodiversity and species that are native to Scotland, we really need to look at resources. That does not mean to say that I have to change my amendments or make reference to the financial memorandum because the proposal would cost a lot of money—it is simply about bringing in NatureScot to support local authorities to make an assessment. It is more about the assessment, and local authorities already have the ability to do that. For example, they have officers who go out to look at situations involving seagulls. That has happened in Eyemouth, in my region—there was a designated individual who worked alongside NatureScot.

I thank the member for her intervention, but I do not see what would be required as being onerous or creating a huge financial burden.

To go back to the amendments, I have one comment on Jim Fairlie’s amendment 35. My final amendment in the group—amendment 35A—seeks to amend the minister’s amendment by deleting lines 11 and 12. Currently, the applicant for the licence will specify the land to which the application relates, and lines 11 and 12 of the minister’s amendment allow NatureScot to propose a different area to which the licence should relate.

I have lodged my amendment 35A because I believe that Jim Fairlie’s amendment is wrong. As my amendments recognise, the Scottish Government has already said that it will not amend the muirburn licensing scheme that was established in the 2024 act, so how can it justify amending the licences that come under section 16AA of the 1981 act?

Article 1 of protocol 1 to the European convention on human rights, on the protection of property, means that a public authority cannot place restrictions on anyone’s property without very good reason. If the minister’s amendment were to be agreed to and NatureScot imposed a licence on someone’s entire property, is the Government content that that would not breach protocol 1? Perhaps the cabinet secretary can address that concern.

The minister’s amendment could also mean that an entire landholding would be subject to the extension of licences to cover the whole landholding. That was already considered in the debate on the bill that became the 2024 act. When the licences took effect, NatureScot unilaterally deviated from the 2024 act, defining “land” as the entire landholding. NatureScot—this is important—later recognised that that was an error in law, after a leading King’s counsel deemed the decision ultra vires. NatureScot then realigned the application process so that it was within the law.

There are deterrents in place to avoid illegal shooting to ensure the effective deterrence of raptor crime, and NatureScot included a new condition to ensure that licences can be revoked if relevant crimes are being committed by relevant people outside the land to which the licence itself relates.

Finally, in August 2025, NatureScot told the BBC:

“We haven’t seen raptor persecution where we have had to act in the case of grouse moor licensing, which is good, but we continue that monitoring and compliance arrangement with Police Scotland and others to make sure that that is the case.”

I strongly oppose amendment 55, amendment 40—which Lorna Slater said that she was not going to move anyway—and the amendment in the name of Beatrice Wishart.

With regard to the last of those, I do not think that it is reasonable that NatureScot would monitor and assess the issue where land managers are already doing so. It is completely unnecessary, and slightly worrying.

Beatrice Wishart talked about control of disease. Land managers already look at implications, and it is important to note that there is currently a kept bird register, along with robust avian influenza protection orders. There is no evidence that those diseases are transmitted between game birds. I therefore do not see that Beatrice Wishart’s amendment is relevant.

I was going to intervene on Mercedes Villalba, but I missed the chance to do so. I think that her amendments would have an impact on the survival of songbirds, because the land is currently being managed by land managers who are operating game shoots. Game shooting is worth a huge amount—£760 million—to the Scottish economy, and many jobs in the rural economy are reliant on it.

Will the cabinet secretary take an intervention?