Seòmar agus comataidhean

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.

PE2074, which was lodged by Iona Stoddart, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to increase the funding that it provides to local councils, enabling them to deliver the best possible health and social care, and help to protect the vulnerable, frail and elderly population from the closure of residential and nursing care homes.

Ms Stoddart draws our attention to research that suggests that as many as one care home a week is closing, in part due to cuts to health and social care budgets. The petition has also been prompted by proposals to close two local authority-run care homes in South Lanarkshire.

It is perhaps worth noting that, since the petition was lodged, South Lanarkshire integration joint board has passed plans to close both care homes. However, it has also written to the Scottish Government in an attempt to secure funding that would enable the closures to be reconsidered.

The SPICe briefing notes that it is the responsibility of individual local authorities to allocate funding provided by the Scottish Government based on local needs and priorities. The briefing also notes the Accounts Commission publication, “Local government in Scotland: Overview 2023”, which includes reference to a UK-wide survey by the Society of Local Authority Chief Executives and Senior Managers that found that 44 per cent of respondents identified adult social care as a service at risk of cuts. I think that any MSP would be aware of the pressures on all health and social care partnerships in their constituencies and the particular cuts that are being imposed unless care is defined as critical or essential.

The Minister for Local Government Empowerment and Planning has responded to the petition, stating that this is

“not a matter that the Scottish Government can intervene in”,

and that it is up to each democratically elected council how it manages the spending of discretionary budget allocations. In doing so, the minister notes

“record funding of over £13.9 billion”

being delivered as part of the latest local government settlement.

Do members have any comments or suggestions for action?

I am minded to say that I am inclined to write to the Minister for Local Government, Empowerment and Planning to seek his reflections on the UK-wide survey by the Society of Local Authority Chief Executives and Senior Managers, which found that 44 per cent of council chief executives and senior managers had identified adult social care as a service that was at risk of cuts due to very large gaps in local government budgets. I am not prepared to sweep the issues that are raised by this new petition under the carpet on the back of what we have heard from the Government so far. I suspect that the position has deteriorated even since the petition was lodged. Do colleagues have any views?

Thank you, Ms Baillie. We have a suggestion to write to the Royal Town Planning Institute. Do colleagues have any other suggestions to make?

Given the technical nature of the issue, the responses that we have received and, as has been said, the quite helpful summary of procedure from the Government—which partly addresses the aims of the petition and the question of the petitioner—Mr Ewing has proposed that we close the petition on that basis. Are members content to do so?

Members indicated agreement.

PE2077, which was lodged by Thomas Ross, calls on the Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to remove personal and social education—often referred to as PSE—PSE from the curriculum for excellence and for it to stop being taught in secondary schools. The petitioner notes that, in their view, PSE is “a useless subject” that takes up secondary school pupils’ learning time.

The SPICe briefing notes that health and wellbeing is a key area of curriculum for excellence and that PSE is one of the ways in which schools support the health and wellbeing curriculum. The briefing also notes that PSE lessons can cover aspects of planning for choices and changes, substance misuse, relationships, sexual health and parenthood and financial literacy, as well as aspects of physical activity, sport and health.

In her response to the petition, the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills notes that

“PSE offers us an opportunity to ensure children and young people are prepared for the issues and challenges that life may bring”,

and makes the key point that

“The Scottish Government has no plans to remove PSE from the national curriculum.”

The cabinet secretary also highlights the Education and Skills Committee 2017 report, which noted

“how valuable good PSE is to young people”,

and says that the Scottish Government continues to take forward the recommendations of that report.

Do members have any comments or suggestions for action?

We will keep the petition open and proceed on that basis.

That concludes the public part of today’s meeting. We will, unusually, meet next Wednesday, when we will hear evidence from the former First Minister, Alex Salmond, about the A9 dualling project.

We have had no suggestion that that session will not take place.

Although we cannot talk about live cases, colleagues who were members of the Scottish Parliament in the previous parliamentary session will remember the case of our former colleague Andy Wightman, who was very much involved in and affected by such litigation.

I have a final question about the issue that you have just touched on. Are legal claims that relate to journalists and campaigners the type most commonly associated with SLAPPs? Is that what they are generally deployed in respect of?

I will assume that none of the witnesses disagrees with Mr Ewing, but I wonder whether anyone would like to expand on anything that he said that they think would help the committee.