Chamber and committees

Welcome back. Item 3 is consideration of continued petitions. PE1723, on essential tremor treatment in Scotland, was lodged by Mary Ramsay. The petition, which was last considered by the committee on 19 January, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to raise awareness of essential tremor and to support the introduction and use of a focused ultrasound scanner for treating people in Scotland who have the condition.

Rhoda Grant will be joining us again.

When we last considered the petition, we agreed to write to the Scottish Government and the National Services Division. We have had a response from the Scottish Government that indicates that the National Services Division is expected to resume applications for the commissioning of new services this month. That was roughly the timetable that was suggested when we last considered the petition.

The National Services Division continues to engage with the clinical team in Tayside to understand what would be required to provide focused ultrasound in Scotland, should it be decided that that is the preferred option.

The Scottish Government submission informs us that

“the Scottish Government has not committed funding to the MRgFUS service in 2022/2023. The evidence base ... will inform consideration on any future financial investment.”

The Scottish Government also provided information about its work to raise awareness of essential tremor among patients and healthcare professionals.

The petitioner’s most recent submission highlights that there are 100,000 people in Scotland with essential tremor, and she has suggested that that figure does not include those who are waiting to see specialists or those who have been misdiagnosed.

Rhoda Grant is with us. We are not necessarily taking a lot of additional evidence, because we are waiting to hear what progress can be made, but would you like to contribute anything that would further our understanding?

Thank you very much for that.

I believe that we will keep the petition open. We are still awaiting some of the key information that we feel would be critical to our coming to a determination. Would colleagues like to make any further recommendations?

I very much concur with that recommended route. When I read the Scottish Government’s response, I, too, was slightly disappointed. I had hoped that, given the circumstances and the fact that the legislation emerged out of a stage 3 amendment, discussion with the Government might have led to some sort of resolution. I felt that the Government gave a rather disdainful brush-off to the issue that we are trying to explore. Therefore, taking evidence seems to be a reasonable course of action.

Are colleagues content that we proceed on the basis that Mr Ewing has suggested? It might also be useful to write to the Game & Wildlife Conservation Trust and the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, just to find out their wider concerns about the conservation impact of the proposal. Are members content with that, too?

Members indicated agreement.

Are colleagues content to keep the petition open on the basis that has been suggested and to take those actions?

Members indicated agreement.

I am mindful of the time, but I will bring in our other two witnesses. Talat, would you like to comment further, or has Kelly summed things up?

Fiona, is there anything that you would like to add?

Fergus, do you have any other questions?

Are there any final thoughts on that?

On that note, I draw our session to an end. I thank Kelly McBride, Fiona Garven and Talat Yaqoob for their comprehensive and helpful answers. That very useful discussion complements our previous evidence session, and I thank you all very much for your contributions and your participation today.

With that, I suspend the meeting for a few moments.

PE1859, which was lodged by Barry Blyther, is on retaining falconers’ rights to practise upland falconry in Scotland. We last considered the petition on 1 December 2021.

The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to amend the Animals and Wildlife (Penalties, Protections and Powers) (Scotland) Act 2020 to allow mountain hares to be hunted for the purposes of falconry.

In our meeting in December, we agreed to write to the Scottish Government to seek its views on how it expects captive falcons to differentiate between legal and illegal species. We thought that the whole thing sounded a bit difficult to follow through. For example, how is a bird of prey supposed to tell the difference between a rabbit and a mountain hare when it is exhibiting natural behaviours?

The committee also asked the Scottish Government to clarify when falconers would face prosecution should their bird take a mountain hare, including what the penalties might be for a breach, and how the current legislation is enforced.

The Scottish Government’s response states:

“It is the responsibility of the falconer to eliminate, or at least significantly reduce ... risk ... by only undertaking falconry where mountain hare are unlikely to be present.”

I felt that we had verged on the slightly ridiculous there. I will not say that the landscape is riddled with mountain hares, but it transpired that the Government’s definition of where they are unlikely to be present amounts to some 2.5 per cent of Scotland. Allegedly, they are present in 97.5 per cent of the landscape. It reached a point at which I almost felt as though the Scottish Government was advocating that falcons should be trained in the use of satnav, because they were apparently to understand that the M8, the Harthill service stations, Aberdeen and points towards the coast were where they could go about their business. That all struck me as being slightly removed from reality and playing to the questions that we were considering.

The final submission from the petitioner focuses on the role of falconry in pest control, and points out that there is an exemption for falconry so that gulls can be deterred, even though they carry the same level of protections as the mountain hare.

The Scottish Government’s submission notes that Police Scotland is responsible for enforcing legislation and that penalties for wildlife crime vary depending on what offence has been committed.

I know that Fergus Ewing is quite keen to contribute on that particular item in the first instance.