Chamber and committees

I thank Rebecca Smith for lodging the petition. She raised an important issue, but the Scottish Government’s position is clear and, therefore, there is nothing further that the committee can usefully do to take forward the petition’s aims.

In view of the fact that, as part of its pre-budget scrutiny, one of our sister committees in Parliament is taking forward the issues that are contained in the petition, we will close it. However, I thank the petitioner very much for drawing the issue to the attention of this committee and the Parliament.

That concludes our consideration of new petitions. The committee will next meet on 22 November.

In the first instance, are colleagues content for us to proceed on those lines?

I think that Mr Ewing would like to make a further suggestion.

The first reason why a debate would be useful is the circumstances whereby the ban came into force, which was through a stage 3 amendment on which the petitioner and his fellow falconers had no opportunity whatsoever to be heard. In fact, it seems that nobody thought of them at all, and they did not have the opportunity to state their case. The whole point of the Scottish Parliament is that everybody should be able to state their case in the legislative process at the first stage. Stage 3 is not supposed to be used for the purposes of introducing brand-new material, particularly not legal bans that can result in criminal convictions. Therefore, of itself, that point of principle deserves to be highlighted in Parliament.

However, turning briefly to the arguments on the substance, it seems to me that the effect on hares of allowing the continuance of falconry would be de minimis. NatureScot has admitted that the number of hares that would be affected is minuscule and completely irrelevant to the question of the size of the population. Moreover, I understand from the petitioner, who has kindly given us a great deal of his wisdom and experience, as others have, that it is only certain types of birds of prey—eagles and hawks, I think—that will go for hares. Others will not and cannot. However, eagles and hawks need to prey on hares. Alternative prey do not work, so that suggestion, which has been made by some, is completely irrelevant.

The last thing that I will say—this is really quite sad—is that the petitioner has highlighted that the eagle that he has is now self-harming, because it cannot behave naturally. It is not allowed to, and the petitioner does not want to break the law, as a law-abiding citizen. As a result, that bird is suffering—because of something that happened in Parliament on which his owner and his owner’s peers had no opportunity even to state their case. The really disappointing thing in this is that the Scottish Government has not fessed up to that and said that a mistake was made. It has shrugged off all responsibility.

That is perhaps a bit of a rehearsal for the debate, convener, but it is heartfelt nonetheless and I hope that members might feel that a debate is needed. It would not need to be an extended debate—it would not need to be three hours long—but it would allow the matter to be ventilated. I think that there would be considerable interest among colleagues, because I recall from the debate that there was some disquiet among some of the older hands, if I may say so, that the procedure that was followed for stage 3 of that bill was not appropriate.

It seems a most unfortunate role—

Thank you, minister. We have listened carefully, and, in the comprehensive responses that you have given, a number of our questions have been answered without our having to put them, so that brings us to the end of our questions. Is there anything else that you feel that we might not have touched on that you want to add before we conclude?

Thank you, Mr Ewing. I agree that there is broader interest in the matter in the Parliament. Indeed, there was considerable interest when Stanley the eagle visited the precincts of the Parliament.

I think that we were disappointed by the evidence that underpinned the decision that was made and the digging in that we heard during the round-table evidence session that we held. We had hoped that the logic and evidence that we had heard might lead the Government to take a different position, but that is not the case.

When we next approach the parliamentary authorities in relation to committee debating time, are colleagues minded to seek to have a debate on the issue in the chamber?

Members indicated agreement.

We will therefore seek to do that and to highlight the issue more generally as a result. We will see what progress can be made in that way and take forward those actions. We had a well-informed debate on surgical mesh not long ago and then our committee debate on our report, but I expect us to have an opportunity for a debate in the chamber in the new year. Therefore, we will seek to have the issue of allowing mountain hares to be hunted for falconry purposes as one of possibly two short debates that we would take to the chamber on that occasion.

Yes, thank you. Again, I would say to the petitioner that it is something that they and we should keep an eye on. I am conscious that not all cancers are terminal illnesses and that, therefore, a number of people might be excluded who might nonetheless benefit from the payment at an earlier point in their treatment. That issue is something that can come back to us at a later date. However, given the Scottish Government’s position, I am afraid that there is nothing further that the committee can do to take forward the aims of the petition. Are colleagues content to close the petition on that basis?

Members indicated agreement.

As there does not appear to be any other suggestions, we will keep the petition open and return to it on receipt of responses to the points that Mr Torrance has proposed.