Chamber and committees

The petition was lodged on 24 March 2021, minister, so the Scottish Government has had 18 or 19 months to consider it. Indeed, we got an initial reply about a year ago. Although I hear that you are willing to consider solutions, we have not heard any this morning. The impression that I get—I cannot speak for my colleagues—is that the Scottish Government has no intention of coming up with a solution, that NatureScot has done nothing to reach out to the falconry world, that the evidence that you have is scant or non-existent and that falconry might as well be finished under the Scottish Government’s approach.

If I am wrong—and I very much hope that I am, minister—I ask you to prove it. Come up with a solution that allows the sport of falconry to continue for centuries in the future as it has in the past. That is what we are asking for. I have suggested one solution, which you dismissed out of hand. What are your solutions? We have heard that a group of Scottish society that is small but that, nonetheless, you say that you value is getting no support, consideration or sympathy from the Scottish Government. I, for one, feel that that is shocking.

I agree with those suggestions. When we write to the Scottish Government, could we specifically ask if it would advise in what ways the taxi trade as a whole is brought into discussions and policy making? I get the impression that the taxi trade in general feels that it is a bit of a Cinderella, because other forms of public transport are routinely involved in every forum, committee and policy-making body, but the taxi trade is outside the room. That issue came across in the evidence.

Does the Scottish Government value falconry?

From the point of view of a falconer, if a falconer lets his bird of prey go and it takes a hare, the population of hares will be okay if the activity is concentrated on grouse moors where the land is properly managed, but there are other populations of hares.

The problem for falconers is that practising their sport exposes them to prosecution. Is that factually correct, or do you dispute that?

Moving on from that—

In that case, they are open to prosecution, so we are back to square 1, minister, with a group of people in Scotland—

If that argument applies, falconry cannot be carried out because it might take a few mountain hares. You have not answered the factual question about the impact of falconry on hares, but the evidence that we have heard—and that you have seen—is that the impact is negligible, infinitesimal, nugatory and irrelevant. You have not disputed that evidence. If you have, or if Mr Dignon has, further factual evidence, I would be very grateful if you could supply the committee with that after the meeting.

The point I want to put to you is this: you are saying that falconry is finished. Falconry cannot be practised because those who practice it face the risk of carrying out a criminal activity and therefore cannot practice their sport in Scotland. You are saying that that is correct and justified because of a law that was passed in respect of which those people had no opportunity whatsoever to be heard. Is that not a preposterous proposition?

I have two points. First, I note that Jackie Baillie referred to a PWC report on the cost of the tunnels. I am looking in our papers to see whether there is specific reference to that; perhaps there is, and I have missed it. I would be keen to get more details on that, and copies of the documents, in order to look into the points that Ms Baillie made about the relative costings, which we need to look at carefully.

Secondly, I know from when I formerly represented Lochaber a rather long time ago—when Mr Sweeney was even younger than he currently is—that, among people living in the Oban and Argyll area who are also served by the A82, there is huge support for upgrading the A82 along Loch Lomond side. Sadly, that has been the case for many decades.

I wonder whether, for fairness, we might reach out to the community—perhaps to the chamber of commerce. I know that some individuals in Lochaber and Argyll were involved, because they have strong views about the importance of proceeding with the upgrade of the road.

No, I was not the cabinet secretary who was responsible for that bill.

You could maybe check that out.

I will move on, minister. You said that falconry could be carried out in other parts the country. We have heard from the petitioner—who has looked into the matter—that the only part of the country where they would be able to practise their sport without risking prosecution is Harthill service station. You have said that they can carry out their sport in other parts of the country. In which other parts of the country can they carry out their sport legitimately and without fear of prosecution, should their birds take mountain hares?