Chamber and committees

Such details are more than I can remember these days.

I agree with Mr Sweeney that it must be time for some sort of review, after 20 years. The can has been kicked so far down the road that there cannot be much road left.

I also note that the SPSO’s budget has increased from £4.7 million to £6.3 million in only four years, and yet the SPSO says that it has insufficient resources because of case volumes. I am interested to learn more about that, because the increase has been much more handsome than that which other public bodies have received during the same period.

To be fair to the ombudsman, one of its limitations is that it does not really have any teeth, and therefore, even complainants whose complaint is upheld do not have a remedy; they do not get any cash or anything else. They might get an apology, if they are lucky. That is an inherent limitation, and it is not the fault of the ombudsman. However, that would fall to be considered in any review into whether the role of an ombudsman is efficacious and achieves what society might expect when there has been serious maladministration.

It is a matter of record that falconry was not mentioned in the 2020 debate. It is fair to say that, when Parliament creates a criminal offence, it is essential that proper consideration is given to any conceivable circumstances of prosecution. That simply did not happen here, which is quite shocking. I think that you are owed an apology from the Scottish Government for that.

I move on to solutions. One solution would be a change in the law, which you have said would not require primary legislation. Will you explain exactly how, in practice, your solution could be implemented? I had thought that primary legislation would be required—namely, an amendment to the 2020 act. Are you saying that subordinate legislation could be used as a means of solving that, or is some other solution possible, such as a general licence? I think that Dr Fox states in his evidence that that is possible.

In that situation, any falconry at all could lead to a falconer facing prosecution.

In particular, we should tease out whether complaints that have been upheld have resulted in a remedy—namely, a financial recompense—and whether, if that has been the case, the recompense has been provided by the indemnity insurers or by the surveyors.

It is probably a complicated area, convener, because there will be an overlap between whether the solicitor or the surveyor was negligent. It could be that, in some cases, both might be negligent, in which case there would be a recourse to dual indemnities: the solicitor’s professional indemnity insurance and the surveyor’s insurance. Nonetheless, it would be useful to get a picture rather than to look at the matter in isolation.

That predicted the question that I was going to ask, which was whether you could let us know what response you get from NHS Grampian. It must obviously have an opportunity to respond and give its view; that is only fair and proper. However, part of our job is to make sure that the Parliament has properly and thoroughly analysed and responded to the petitioner’s plea for the availability of the prescription of opiate substitutes, principally methadone. I am keen to see the result of the inquiries and pleased that the minister has already pursued them rigorously. Thank you for that.

You made that point in response to Mr Sweeney’s question earlier. When asked how much it would cost, you said that it would not cost anything and would be self-financing. However, to play the devil’s advocate, I will say that your thesis about why it would not cost anything relies on an assumption that people would switch from bus to train. However, if what you want was granted, and there was free rail travel for people with a disability, is it not the case that many of those people do not currently use the bus at all, not least because of practical problems such as a lack of toilet facilities? In other words, some people with a disability would use the benefit of free rail travel but do not currently travel on the bus. Therefore, is there not bound to be some extra cost?

Good morning and thank you for the petition. Your evidence is that you had no opportunity whatsoever to contribute to or be consulted on the law prior to its passage. Is that correct?

I think that that is completely wrong. I will not dwell on that, but I wanted to make that point.

Now that the law is the law—it has been passed—what is the impact of the 2020 act on falconry?

Earlier in your evidence, you spoke about mountain hares being taken by birds that are used in falconry. I want to make sure that I understood the issue properly. It was your evidence that those numbers are very small compared with those accounted for by shooting. You gave some figures, but will you clarify what your view is on the overall impact of falconry on the number of mountain hares that are killed in relation to the overall statistics regarding hares? I know that there is a lot of controversy about the numbers, because those on the country sports side think that hares are not under threat at all and that there is a lack of evidence, which they want to sort. What is your view about the impact of falconry on the number of hares that are killed in Scotland?