Seòmar agus comataidhean

Are colleagues content to close the petition?

Members indicated agreement.

PE2120, which was lodged by Tam Wilson on behalf of the Scottish Trades Union Congress, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to permanently remove peak fare pricing from ScotRail services. I express appreciation to all those who have contributed further evidence to the committee on the matter. The committee will be aware of the action that the Scottish Government has subsequently announced. In the light of that, and given that the petition’s objective has been achieved, are colleagues content to close the petition?

Members indicated agreement.

Primitive Goat Species (Protected Status) (PE2151)

The first new petition for consideration is PE2151, lodged by Kenneth Erik Moffatt, which 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. I believe that the petitioner may be with us, and I invite any colleagues who wish to address the committee in relation to the petition to come forward.

The Scottish Parliament information centre briefing for the petition highlights NatureScot’s position regarding what the body terms “feral goats”. Although NatureScot has indicated that some Scottish feral goat herds have been established for a long time and might be described as naturalised, it considers feral goats to be an invasive non-native species that has the potential to cause serious damage to habitats by way of overgrazing, for which reason they have to be managed. However, NatureScot recognises that feral goat herds are held in affection by people and often have strong local cultural links.

In its initial response to the petition, the Scottish Government makes it clear that it has no plans to provide full legal protected status for primitive goats. The Government echoes NatureScot in supporting the reduction of feral goat numbers to prevent damage to habitats or forestry, in a similar way to how deer populations are managed. Regarding the specific circumstances in the Scottish Borders, the Government submission states that it is for landowners to consider how any reduction in the feral goat population should be achieved in practice.

It is worth noting that the Scottish Government acknowledges that feral goats might have some positive benefits for biodiversity, such as providing food for eagles and carrion feeders and, more important, preventing open habitats from scrubbing over, with goats having already been used for that purpose in Tentsmuir in Fife.

We have received a submission from the Wild Goat Conservation Trust in support of the petition. It argues that granting protected status to wild goats would enable regulation of numbers through licensing, so that there would always be a healthy herd of wild goats in balance with the rest of the upland wildlife.

In additional submissions, the petitioner provides extensive evidence on primitive goat herds’ unique nature, and he objects to NatureScot and the Scottish Government’s use of the terms “feral” and “invasive” as opposed to “wild”. In his view, those terms mischaracterise the importance of an endangered species and make it easier to oppose the granting of protected status. The petitioner also deplores what he calls the “overzealous culling”—his words—of wild goats in the Langholm and Newcastleton hills, which he sees as unethical and unsustainable.

We have received a submission in support of the petition from our colleague Emma Harper, and we are joined by our colleagues Rachael Hamilton and Craig Hoy. I invite them to offer the committee any pearls of wisdom ahead of our consideration of the steps that we might take. I take it that Rachael Hamilton will go first.

That is the dead hand of NatureScot—sorry, my prejudice has been provoked again. At times, I find it difficult to understand what the connection is between NatureScot and the people on the ground and in communities. Do colleagues have any thoughts or suggestions?

We could couple that with a reference to the fact that the petition has attracted an unusual degree of public support and we could draw attention to the number of individuals who have supported it. We could also reference the fact that some of the evidence that the Scottish Government apparently believes NatureScot has acted on has been directly challenged by those in the communities, who I imagine know more about the subject than NatureScot does.

PE2153, which has been lodged by Lisa Williams, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to reduce council tax by 50 per cent for single persons.

The SPICe briefing for this petition explains that most single-person households receive a 25 per cent council tax discount, which is also available if only one person living in a property is liable for council tax. Additionally, the Scottish Government’s response explains that, apart from the single-person discount, there is the council tax reduction—or CTR—scheme, which is designed to reduce the council tax liabilities of any household based on an assessment of income, capital and other circumstances. The Government indicates that currently more than 450,000 households in Scotland benefit from the scheme, and it encourages the petitioner to reach out to their local council to check their eligibility for CTR.

The Scottish Government and COSLA are undertaking a joint programme of engagement to consider potential council tax reform, aimed at improving fairness and sustainability. The Government suggests that the evidence gathered as part of that engagement work will form the basis of a Scottish Parliament debate in early 2026, with a view to informing the Parliament in the next session of the findings and potential directions for reform of the wider council tax system. However, I note that the minister concerned has already suggested that there will be a revaluation of council tax for properties in the next session, which, I would have thought, might have its own consequential issues.

Do members have any comments or suggestions for action?

We thank the petitioners and I hope that they will have noted the accompanying remarks that have just been made.

We could summarise our impression that that was the case in the letter that we send to the Cabinet Secretary for Justice and Home Affairs. Are committee members agreed on that?

Members indicated agreement.

Thank you. That is on the record. I am minded, in closing the petition—if colleagues are content to do that—to say that the committee was unpersuaded by the arguments not to hold a national review and that we believe that the Government’s decision is ill judged and something of a fudge. Are committee members content to add that to the record?

Members indicated agreement.

I thank Meghan Gallacher very much. We will keep the petition open and act on that basis.