Chamber and committees

I will take the final point first. Local authorities face different situations. Something as basic as the fact that a local authority has a geography that allows more people to have their own gardens will make a difference compared with an urban local authority that deals with fewer instances of that. They certainly deal with different local circumstances and different demand, and they need to make resource decisions about that and about where to place funding as part of the block grant.

To be very cut and dried, I say that if statutory duties are not met by a local authority, it is possible in theory to bring legal proceedings against it, but I say that only as a matter of fact; the Scottish Government would not want to pursue that. We would far rather work with local authorities and the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, if need be, to work out constructively how to make progress together. We can do that in a number of ways, such as continuing with the tripartite group and considering whether additional guidance would be helpful.

I am conscious that we produced guidance on food-growing strategies but have not done so on allotment reports, and I accept that that might be a reason why there have been difficulties. We talked about considering benchmarking data and easing regulation on permitted development rights. The Scottish Government has all those tools and, ultimately, a legal power to bring proceedings, although we would not want to go there.

That is a good point. I will hand over to my colleague Tracy McCollin to say a bit more about that, given that she heads up the good food nation team. I see local food growing and provision for it, both in a statutory sense and more widely, as being part of local good food nation planning in a very practical sense, in that a food-growing strategy under part 9 could form part of what a local authority produces as its local good food nation plan. The provision in general of good opportunities for local growing is part of our vision for a good food nation.

I think that there is statutory provision under the Good Food Nation (Scotland) Act 2022 for the Scottish Government and local authorities to work together on guidance on the production of the local good food nation plans. I am sure that Tracy McCollin will correct me if I am wrong about that. Tracy, do you want to say a little bit more about the interplay in that?

I do not currently have any plans for an audit, but that does not mean that I am not sympathetic to the view that public bodies should consider the scope to allow their land to be used in that way. I know that the question of whether the 2015 act should be extended to include other public bodies was considered. I do not think that that is necessary just now. Coming from the land reform portfolio, I see that we already have a suite of right-to-buy mechanisms that apply to public and private land, including a mechanism to buy abandoned or neglected ground to do further sustainable development, and the crofting right to buy. There are also negotiated purchases and sales that happen outside the legislation.

I see an environment with a lot of opportunity for that just now. For that reason, I do not currently think that the 2015 act should be extended beyond local authorities.

No.

I do not think that there is—

I will make some opening remarks to set the scene, if that would be helpful.

I thank the committee for inviting me to give evidence on the petition. We have said previously, and I reiterate it today, that we absolutely recognise the cultural significance of falconry: indeed, I am taking the Hunting with Dogs (Scotland) Bill through Parliament and, at stage 2, I rejected amendments that I felt could unjustifiably impinge on legal activity.

However, it is very much our view that hunting with birds of prey must be undertaken within the law. Mountain hares are now a protected species, following the passing of the Animals and Wildlife (Penalties, Protections and Powers) (Scotland) Act in June 2020, which, of course—as the committee will have heard—means that mountain hares have been protected from 1 March 2021. That means that they can no longer be taken for sporting or recreational purposes.

Mountain hares have been protected principally due to concern about their having unfavourable and inadequate conservation status, together with the very real concern of many stakeholders and the public about the number of mountain hares that were being killed each year. On conservation status, the mountain hare is a priority species for conservation under the United Kingdom biodiversity action plan and it is also on the Scottish biodiversity list. That means that mountain hares are of principal concern and importance for biodiversity conservation. Of course, we are living in a climate and nature emergency.

However, I point out that birds of prey can still be used to take mountain hares for other purposes, where that is carried out under licence. That is dictated by section 16(3) of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. I appreciate that a lot of the discussion has been about the risk of falconers taking non-target species, including mountain hares, when birds are being exercised and when they are hunting legitimate quarry, such as rabbits. Section 9 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 made it an offence for a person to “intentionally or recklessly” kill, injure or take a wild animal. Of course, we might get into some discussion about what constitutes an intentional or reckless act, but suffice it to say that accidental behaviour does not constitute unlawful behaviour, in that regard.

However, ultimately, as with any criminal offence, it is up to Police Scotland and the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service to consider the evidence in the circumstances. I also point out that, prior to mountain hares being given year-round protection on 1 March, they were included in schedule 5A to the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, which contains the list of animals that were protected in their close seasons. I point that out falconers have had to contend with open seasons and close seasons for many years, which gives me confidence that they are able to conduct their activities in a way that abides by different requirements at different times.

I know that the convener and committee members will have a lot of questions, so I will leave it there, but I stress that I recognise the cultural significance of falconry and the people who practise it. I am always open to views on the adequacy, implementation and impact of legislation, but I stress that the decision was taken on the basis of conservation concerns, so curtailment of sporting activity is justified in that context.

I appreciate that the petition focuses on upland falconry, but for the purposes of making legislation and policy development, I have to take falconry as a practice in the round, because we have not made—I do not think that we would make—law for different types of falconry in different places. However, I understand that there is a dense population of mountain hares in the uplands, particularly on land that is managed as moorland, which means that such areas are where falconers have practised their activity. Obviously, the density of the mountain hare population in such areas means that there is a propensity for them to be the quarry that is pursued.

The type of falcon is another difference that can be found between practices in the uplands and other areas, but that—again—comes down to the quarry that is pursued. You might find that smaller falcons are used in some parts of the country for smaller quarry. A small number of people use birds as large as eagles to take larger quarry, which previously included mountain hares.

I do not know whether Hugh Dignon can add to that.

Obviously, the landscape has a bearing, but we would say that the—

Yes. I value falconry in the same way as I value other cultural heritage, including sporting and recreational parts of Scottish culture. I accept that it is important to the people who practise it, and that there are economic advantages to its practice in the countryside.

My colleague Hugh Dignon answered that point thoroughly in his previous response, which was about all the ways in which falconry can continue in Scotland, despite the change to the law.