Seòmar agus comataidhean

Thank you, Mr Russell. That was a ringing endorsement of the petitioner’s ask.

The next petition is PE2095, lodged by Margaret Tracey Smith, which calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to review and seek to update section 3.2 of “Energy Consents Unit: Good Practice Guidance for Applications under Section 36 and 37 of the Electricity Act 1989”—that was a mouthful—to address the concerns of communities about the lack of meaningful, responsible and robust voluntary and pre-application consultation by transmission operators on energy infrastructure projects. The petition also calls for all available levers to be explored to strengthen community liaison and public participation during the lifecycle of energy infrastructure projects.

We last considered the petition on 4 June 2025, when we agreed to write to the Scottish Government. As with PE1864, I reiterate what we heard from the Cabinet Secretary for Climate Action and Energy on 14 January, which was that, in light of the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025, the Scottish Government is working on a consultation with stakeholders, including communities, to discuss issues that relate to community engagement and community consultation so that the process can be improved.

We have also already heard about work that is in progress to update the Government’s good practice principles for community benefits from onshore renewable energy developments. As was suggested earlier, the Government also champions the reporter-led examination process that was introduced by the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025 for when a planning authority objects to an application in a specified timeframe. Under that procedure, the reporter may decide that it is appropriate to hold a meeting to engage with interested parties regarding their views.

Do members have any comments or suggestions for action?

Are colleagues content to do that?

Members indicated agreement.

I take all that into account. The issue might be best served by a fresh petition in the next parliamentary session, simply because the Government has set a timeline to summer 2026 in relation to the publication of certain actions. It seems to be an issue that we would want to explore properly in the next session. Does Maurice Golden have any suggestions for how we might proceed in relation to the petition?

Do colleagues have any comments? As I said, the petition is on an issue that is unlikely to be progressed in any other way in the Parliament. The committee can explore such issues to some extent, but we have no further time in this parliamentary session to take the matter forward. However, I would not be sorry to see more exploration of the issue over a longer timeline by a future Parliament, were its members minded to do that. Are colleagues content to close the petition on that basis?

Members indicated agreement.

PE2151 is on granting protected status to primitive goat species in the Scottish Borders. There is considerable public interest in this petition; indeed, I know that there is considerable interest in the public gallery, from the Scottish media more generally, from members of Parliament and from members of the Scottish Parliament who live in areas where this is an issue.

The petition, which has been lodged by Kenneth Erik Moffatt, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to help ensure the survival of primitive goat species in the Scottish Borders by granting them protected status. We previously considered the petition on 10 September 2025, when we agreed to write to the Scottish Government, the UK Joint Nature Conservation Committee, NatureScot and the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service.

We are aware, through written evidence and other correspondence, of the strength of feeling on the issue and how it affects the Langholm and Newcastleton goats in particular. The response that we received from the JNCC explains that, according to its policy guidance, species are eligible for inclusion under legal protection only if they are both native to Great Britain and endangered. It states that feral goats are understood to be non-native to the UK and are therefore ineligible under current guidance. The JNCC further notes that it would be difficult to define and enforce protection for British primitive goats as distinct from more modern variants, because they are taxonomically—a word that I have not deployed previously—the same species, and there is no commonly accepted subspecies status for feral populations.

However, submissions from the Wild Goat Conservation Trust and the petitioner argue that the Langholm and Newcastleton goat is distinct of type. We understand that there is some academic interest in studying its DNA, although the funding is not necessarily available to undertake that work.

The Scottish Government reiterates that it has no plans to provide full legal protected status or increase regulatory protection for feral goats because, under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, they are considered to be outwith their native range in Scotland. Additionally, both the Scottish Government and NatureScot reiterate concerns about the impact of grazing pressure on the environment, although the submission from the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service suggests that goat grazing could contribute to wildfire control.

Finally—and this, I am afraid, is the clincher for us in the Parliament—members might be aware that our MSP colleague Rachael Hamilton lodged stage 2 amendments to the Natural Environment (Scotland) Bill in relation to the protection of wild goats and, specifically, the goats of the Langholm and Newcastleton hills. After the debate on those amendments, the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee voted against them.

Bearing in mind that the issue has now been debated and voted on by a committee of the Parliament, do we have any comments or suggestions for action?

Agenda item 2 is the consideration of new petitions. These are the last new petitions that we will be considering. Given where we are in the parliamentary session there is, sadly, little opportunity for us to do much at all in respect of them.

Are colleagues content for us to take Mr Torrance’s proposal as our position?

I would have thought that the Parliament ought to seek to explore that more generally in the Health and Social Care Committee.

We therefore close that petition.

That brings us to the conclusion of the formal part of this morning’s business. I would be grateful if colleagues stayed for just a few minutes longer.

Meeting closed at 11:10.