Chamber and committees

Okay. It is not a question that I would necessarily expect you to be able to answer because the economics and the calculations here are all pretty complex, as we have seen from the information from the Scottish Parliament information centre.

Thank you for putting your case; you have both made the points very well.

Is it too dramatic or too generalised a statement to say that the effect of the law is to make every falconer a potential criminal if they carry out the practice of falconry?

We will consider that. I think that it is fair to say that it is within our purview.

On the point about impacts, is there any way in which falconers could maintain their work without impacting on protected species? In other words, is there not some way in which you can carry on with falconry despite the problem of facing a potential prosecution?

In terms of the overall hare population, despite the controversy over the counting methods, around 1,000 is de minimis; it is negligible. Is that accurate?

I think that we should have the round-table discussion first and then write to the Scottish Government, in order to get a flavour of what people think.

I would like to add a small suggestion to what Mr Torrance suggested, which I agree with. In seeking to invite individuals with lived experience to participate in the discussion, perhaps we could ask the petitioners, who have said that they are aware of other examples, whether they would be happy to suggest to us people with lived experience, as they have knowledge of the issues. It would be good to see whether they could point us in the right direction.

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.

So it is a known unknown.

Convener, what other evidence have we obtained? The petitioners have plainly expressed their view, as have a few others. However, as someone who is not unfamiliar with the M8, I am a bit unsure as to how it could be removed, which is what the petition calls for.

It occurs to me that that would have a huge impact, in a number of respects, on the flow of traffic and therefore on the conduct of business and the conveyance of emergency vehicles to and from hospitals. In general, the system of transport that we have in Scotland depends, whether we like it or not, substantially on roads. I wonder, therefore, whether we should seek evidence more widely in order to get a rounded view. I am thinking in particular of bodies such as the Glasgow Chamber of Commerce, motoring organisations such as the RAC and the police and emergency services. I appreciate that there is a huge range of possibilities, some of which are relatively modest, and some that may involve complete removal of the road, shutting it at weekends or whatever.

I am struck by the fact that we do not appear to have sought that evidence—as far as I know; I am sorry if I have not picked that up from the papers by the clerks, although I have raised the matter with the clerks in correspondence. Perhaps we should cast our net a bit more widely to get a more rounded view of the proposals.

It is appropriate, and very convenient, convener.

There is, in principle, a strong argument behind what the petition calls for, but there is a more practical option that we might pursue. I appreciate that it is perhaps not absolutely what the petitioner wants, but we might want to consider asking the Scottish Government whether it believes that the rural infrastructure fund could be continued and extended. I know that the fund is a popular financial provision with both local authorities and the Scottish Government. It is fairly flexible, and I know that it has been well used in Highland to address local issues of concern in places such as the fairy pools on Skye and has enabled solutions to be found to some long-standing local community issues.

Given that experience, I wonder whether we might even encourage the Scottish Government to work with local authorities on using the fund to fill gaps in the provision of public toilets throughout the country. The scheme, as a modus operandi, seems to be practical and has been working in practice for a good few years now.