³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ

We thank the petitioner for raising the issue, and I hope that they have drawn some comfort from the response from the Government.

Are members content with that suggested action?

Members indicated agreement.

That was in London. At this point, we have had no suggestion to that effect.

We now move into private session.

Thank you, minister. That is encouraging. If I look over your shoulder, I can see the petitioner, who is in the public gallery this morning and will, no doubt, be pleased to hear that, too.

I was trying to understand the pathway. At our last meeting, having read the previous submissions that we had received, I noted an understanding that, given that Scots law is rooted in different traditions and precedents to law elsewhere in the UK, the assumption underpinning the petition—that there would be tourist destination travel to Scotland for such litigation—was perhaps more of a theory than a determined outcome. The Scottish Government’s thought process at that point was that it would prefer to be in a slightly reactive position if that happened rather than in a proactive position simply because it might happen, given everything else that the Government has to consider. Was that part of the thinking? Has the fact that action has now been taken in other jurisdictions compounded the potential risk—which might otherwise have been theoretically less likely but is now potentially more likely—that such litigation could occur, meaning that the Government perhaps feels that it needs to take more decisive and direct action on the matter, proactively rather than reactively?

I would be very grateful for that.

Thank you. You make a very powerful case in respect of the petitioner and the aims of his petitions. The issue that the committee must wrestle with is the—as you have said, profoundly disappointing—closed door that was presented to us by the Scottish Government.

Mr Ewing, are you indicating that you have thoughts on the matter?

I was going to suggest that, if we take forward Mr Ewing’s proposal to close the petitions, we couple that with writing to the Scottish Government to, as well as confirm our decision, summarise the practical consequences that Rhoda Grant detailed quite accurately and encourage the Government to consider the option of bringing together parties to advance a bespoke solution, rather than simply, as it has done, refusing to entertain further consideration of the idea.

I do not think that there is any dramatic action that we can take, but we could embrace Rhoda Grant’s suggestion by writing to the Government at the same time. Does that meet the committee’s approval?

I agree. We could also write to Public Health Scotland to seek an update on its modelling work on the timescales that it anticipates for completion.

We should keep the petition open and seek further explanation of what progress is being made in that regard. It all looks a bit piecemeal and of secondary consideration, but women in Scotland should not feel that they are subjected to bias or discriminated against compared with those elsewhere in the United Kingdom. Are colleagues content to proceed on that basis?

Members indicated agreement.

My voice has been a little shaky today and I now have a lot to say about sheep. Please bear with me.

Our next continued petition, PE2021, on ensuring that the definition of protected animals in the Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Act 2006 applies to the sheep on St Kilda, was lodged by David Peter Buckland and Graham Charlesworth. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to clarify the definition of protected animals, as contained in the Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Act 2006 and the associated guidance, to ensure that the feral sheep on St Kilda are covered by that legislation, enabling interventions to reduce the risk of winter starvation and the consequential suffering of the sheep.

We last considered the petition at our meeting on 28 June 2023, when we agreed to write to the National Trust for Scotland, the St Kilda Soay sheep research project, NatureScot and OneKind. I am pleased to say that we have received responses from all those organisations, copies of which are included in our papers for today’s meeting.

The animal welfare charity OneKind expressed concern about the welfare of the sheep on St Kilda and suggested that it is necessary to clarify the status of the sheep in order to establish what level of protection they should be afforded, and by whom. OneKind’s response also suggests that, given that there is no option for the sheep population to disperse, there is a moral obligation to address the high levels of winter starvation but cautions that any proposals to reduce levels of winter starvation should be subject to animal welfare impact assessments.

Researchers from the Soay sheep research project state that there is no clear biological evidence that the sheep are meaningfully different from other wild mammal populations and go on to note that wild animals often die in large numbers as a result of natural processes, including starvation and exposure to harsh weather, but that, in most cases, those deaths are unseen. The researchers also suggest that measures to manage winter mortality, for example through a large-scale regular cull, could have welfare implications for the remaining sheep.

The response from the National Trust for Scotland highlights the fact that the retention of wild traits in the Soay sheep population has allowed for their survival in the often harsh conditions of the archipelago. The trust follows Scottish Government advice that the sheep should be regarded in the same way as unowned and unmanaged animal populations such as wild deer. Although there is a presumption against intervention, the trust notes that it might consider intervention in exceptional circumstances in response to animal welfare needs.

Although NatureScot’s remit does not specifically cover animal welfare, its response notes that any change to the guidance on the Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Act 2006 would be likely also to apply to feral goats and feral cats, potentially leading to unintended consequences if landowners decided to remove populations of feral livestock from their land rather than taking on the burden of their welfare.

Those are the responses from the organisations to which we wrote.

We have also received two submissions from the petitioners, the first of which addresses the responses that we have received—and to which I have just referred—and notes the importance of clarifying whether the Soay sheep are to be considered wild or feral. The petitioners also make a comparison with the winter starvation of cattle and horses in Oostvaardersplassen in the Netherlands, where, similar to the situation on St Kilda, the feral animals have no predators and cannot disperse or migrate. In that case, images of starving animals led to public outrage and welfare interventions were rapidly introduced.

The petitioners’ most recent submission disputes the validity of the information that has been provided by the National Trust for Scotland and invites us to request sight of the correspondence between the trust and the Scottish Government in relation to the status of the Soay sheep.

We have also received a submission from Dr Mary Harman, offering further information on the history of the sheep on St Kilda, noting accounts by the archipelago’s inhabitants of the sheep being used for food and suggesting that a number of ram lambs would have been castrated to reduce fighting and to limit the population.

We have a fairly comprehensive set of responses, including two challenging additional responses from the petitioners, on an issue of major concern about wildlife conservation on St Kilda. In the light of all that, do members have any comments or suggestions for action?

I am not sure whether one of the petitioners is with us today—I wondered whether I recognised him. Yes, he is in the gallery. Forgive my eyesight—you are as far away from me as it is possible to be, but I thought that you might be here. I hope that you are pleased that we have decided to keep the petition open. In the light of your responses, we will pursue the actions that you have suggested.