Meeting of the Parliament 27 January 2026 [Draft]
We did not even get that much assurance from the Government on 8 January, when I raised the issue, and it is because of the Government’s poor response on that date that I have lodged my amendments in this group, at the suggestion of one of my colleagues, who shall remain nameless.
I also spoke to the National Trust for Scotland. Its argument, and that of the Government, is that the sheep are wild, not feral, so are not covered by the Animal Health and Welfare Act (Scotland) Act 2006. However, one of the definitions of a protected animal in the 2006 act is that it is
“of a kind ... commonly domesticated in the British Islands”.
Sheep are definitely in that category, in my opinion and according to the legal advice that I and the Government have received. I have to say that I was disappointed in the Government’s previous response, which did virtually nothing in restating the Government’s position, which is why I lodged my amendments.
I confess that I do not generally agree with amendments appearing out of the blue at stage 3; However, given that I am retiring shortly, I might as well break that rule. [Laughter.]
My key argument is twofold. First, public expectations about animal welfare have moved on since the 1930s, when people left St Kilda and its sheep were moved to Hirta and, effectively, abandoned there. It is my contention that, if those sheep were kept in a field in Angus or Perthshire by Jim Fairlie, Douglas Ross, Edward Mountain or Tim Eagle, that would not be acceptable.
Secondly, the island itself is suffering from too many sheep and serious overgrazing. Last summer, I visited Mingulay, which people left in around 1912 and from which all sheep and cattle have been removed. The difference is stark. Mingulay is covered in long grass and other plants, and it seems to be an environment that supports a wide range of flora and fauna. I argue, therefore, that not just the sheep on Hirta are suffering; the island itself is suffering from the sheep. Perhaps that is the most relevant point when it comes to the bill.
There are comparisons to other locations where sheep and goats are, largely, allowed to live in a wild state but are subject to some human intervention. One is the island of Lundy, off the north coast of Devon, which I have also visited and to which, I understand, some of the same Soay sheep were relocated in 1942. There, sheep continue to be feral but now live in a fairly wild state. However, there is a regular cull, in order to prevent the problems of overpopulation and starvation that are in St Kilda.
Another example of limited intervention is the feral goats that live in the Great Orme, a hill beside Llandudno in north Wales. I happen to be familiar with that, as my brother is one of the local vets. Members might have seen pictures of those goats in the town. Again, the goats are left largely to themselves. However, there is some human intervention: for example, one got stuck in a cave, was tranquilised and had its horns trimmed.
I have been contacted by a variety of people since my question was asked, including vets in the Western Isles, who have long sought to raise the issue, and the National Trust for Scotland, which arranged a call with me last week and confirmed that it is carrying out a review, as Tim Eagle said. I believe that the Scottish Animal Welfare Commission is also conducting a review, and that the National Trust for Scotland will liaise with it.
I am looking for the Government’s acknowledgement that those sheep are not wild animals; its acceptance that sheep are dying of starvation in unacceptable numbers; and its agreement that the status quo is not an option. If I get those assurances, I will probably not move amendment 24.