Hansard

I think that, had Parliament not expressed a view, we might have been in a different position.It has been a recurring feature in my education as convener of this committee over this parliamentary session, but I wish that NatureScot would become a more proactive organisation and not resemble a dead sheep with its legs up in the air. It seems to parrot desktop surveys and other party-political things—actually, I do not want to use the term “party political”. Time and again, I have found it depressing.As Mr Golden suggested, we are in the ridiculous position where the urban gull population, which is terrorising the community, is subject to statutory protection, but the goat population, which the community is actively seeking to support and sustain, is not being protected in any way. The whole thing seems to be the wrong way round—there is another expression, which I cannot use because it is not appropriate.No colleague has indicated that they have comments or suggestions other than Mr Golden’s proposal, so we have no other option. That is where we are at. I do not think that it will satisfy anybody locally—whereas we brought relief to Stanley the eagle, we have not been able to do much for the goat population.The issue might be raised again in other ways—and who knows what the composition of the next Parliament might be—but what seemed like a widely supported view from people who represent the community locally has been set aside in favour of a rule book.