Chamber and committees

With the convener’s permission, I would like to place on record a couple of matters arising from the evidence session with the minister, of which I have given notice to the clerk.

First, at the outset of her evidence, the minister said that I had been the cabinet secretary at the time, but I pointed out that I was not the cabinet secretary responsible for the Animals and Wildlife (Penalties, Protections and Powers) (Scotland) Bill. However, the minister then added that the junior minister who took the legislation forward was acting under both Roseanna Cunningham and me. That is true, but it gives a slightly false impression of the situation, and I wanted to correct that. For the avoidance of doubt, I was not cabinet secretary with direct responsibility for that bill; that was Ms Cunningham, and Ms Gougeon took forward the bill on a practical day-to-day basis, acting on instruction from Ms Cunningham. Therefore, I had no direct ministerial focus or policy role for that bill, although, of course, I was a member of Cabinet.

Secondly, later on, the minister said:

“If the solution that Mr Ewing is referring to is that I instruct law officers to make a statement that a criminal offence will not be prosecuted, he is doing a disservice to the legal profession that he was once part of.”—[Official Report, Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee, 21 December 2022; c 17.]

In response, I point out that I am still part of that profession, because I am on the roll of solicitors, although I am no longer in practice. Of more substance is the fact that I did not call for a blanket ban on prosecution; rather, I sought guidance, and I hope that guidance is an option that can be explored.

I will make further, substantive remarks later, but I wanted to clarify those points for the record. Thank you for the opportunity.

The dairy farmers do a brilliant job. Anyone who watched “This Farming Life” on television yesterday evening will have seen dairy farmers in the south of Scotland who provide a great service for the country, and I assume that they would be concerned about the reputational risk arising from any food poisoning incident involving milk.

Perhaps I could add a little addendum.

Rhoda Grant raised a fair point. If the Government says in response to any request for action, “We might get round to doing something one day,” that’s no very good. The committee should not accept that response in principle, although we should probably word it more moderately and with politesse—as you advocated, convener—rather than in the words that I have just deployed. However, we should press the issue and say that we would like a more specific response about when the Government plans to take any action.

At the same time, I agree with you, convener, that Ms Grant will not be backward in coming forward and making her own representations. It might be a matter for individual MSPs to pursue in their constituencies or regions as well.

I am aware of Michelle Thomson’s interest in the petition. In fact, she would have liked to have been here, but she is across the corridor in another committee meeting.

It seems a little inconsistent that the Scottish Government is not planning to do more than it has said, in the light of the fact that the UK Government is doing more, as is the European Union. I would like a more specific response from the Scottish Government on how it feels that the defamation law that was passed fairly recently covers the issue. The petitioner is plainly of the view that the Scottish Government does not recognise the scale of the problem.

The scenario that we are concerned about is that the UK passes legislation, leaving Scotland as the jurisdiction of choice of very rich people who, basically, wish to attack the freedom of the press using the courts as a shield. I do not think that we want that to happen in Scotland. Therefore, I find the lack of any obvious enthusiasm from the Scottish Government disappointing. However, if it argues that the law that was passed last year is a sufficient shield, we need a lot more information and a lot more of a specific response than we have had at the moment.

If we do not get that specific information, as I think might happen—I struggle to be an optimist in life, convener, and I hope that I am wrong—there is a case to have a hearing at which the petitioner and the University of Aberdeen academics who have submitted a written response, particularly Professor Borg-Barthet, who has been a key adviser to the European Union, along with the Law Society of Scotland and a Government minister might give evidence. If we are not satisfied by the initial responses, it might be helpful to indicate in the letters to everybody that we are contemplating holding an inquiry and therefore we hope that, again, the pencil will have a high lead content when we get the response.

The petitioner has raised a point of principle. If it is right that those benefits, whatever they are, should be paid from the date when the individual is certified as having dementia, surely that should apply to all benefits. It is a general principle. We could not and should not tolerate a system whereby some authorities, whether they be local authorities, quangos or whatever, decide to give help to those individuals and others do not. It is a postcode lottery—that would be the rather pejorative way of putting it. However, a lot of people around Scotland who should be getting the benefit of a 25 per cent reduction in council tax are not getting it. That is prima facie unfair.

All I am saying, convener, is that, in addition to the actions that have been suggested and if members agree, the point might be made that, as a general principle, there must be a universal application of the system. Whatever that system is, it should be universal and some people should not be left out.

We are really indebted to the petitioner for highlighting the issue. I was not aware of it and the petitioner has done us a good service for bringing it to the Parliament.

It is factually correct to say that falconry was not mentioned in that process. There was no evidence about falconry. Nobody mentioned falconry at all at stage 3, no evidence was submitted and nobody from the falconry world had the opportunity to be heard. Is that right?

If you do not mind, minister, I want to press you in order that we get clarity about the point, because I think that it is factually incontrovertible that the falconry world had no opportunity to be heard. It was not consulted, it was not mentioned and no evidence whatsoever about falconry in relation to mountain hares was presented, submitted, discussed or mentioned by anybody during the passage of the bill. Is that factually correct?

Did anyone consult the falconry community or reach out to it? Mr Dignon, did you say to the falconers, “Excuse me, but this amendment has come forward and we think you might be affected by it”? Did that happen?

You have answered the question, so I would rather move on.

What happened here was that, without any opportunity to be heard, a group of people within Scottish society were made into potential criminals; a criminal offence was created without their having any opportunity to give evidence in their own Parliament before they became subject to potential prosecution. The petitioner is therefore asking for the law to be amended to allow mountain hares to be hunted for the purposes of falconry.

Finally, I want to pursue the point raised by the convener, which is that the evidence that we have heard shows that the practice of falconry in Scotland is fairly restricted. It is not a huge sport: relatively small numbers of people and of birds of prey are involved. The number of hares actually taken as a result of falconry is infinitesimal. Therefore, the Scottish Government should surely agree with the petitioners and should grant the petition because the impact on the hare population is negligible.