���˿���

It does not mean that. NatureScot has officers who are integrated into their communities and who understand a great deal about what is happening in those communities. The point is that the advice that we took from NatureScot was about the conservation status as a whole, and we had to respond to that.

If the solution that Mr Ewing is referring to is that I instruct law officers to make a statement that a criminal offence will not be prosecuted, he is doing a disservice to the legal profession that he was once part of. It is just not a realistic solution.

I have in front of me the three written submissions that the Scottish Government has made to the committee. I am here today in good faith. I do not believe that the changes made to the protection of the status of one species undermine the practice of falconry in Scotland to the extent that Mr Ewing suggests. We have to bear in mind the fact that the golden eagle is probably the only species of falcon that would be large enough to take a mountain hare. Falconers use a range of other species and they pursue a range of quarry.

There is also a licensing scheme for the protection of young timber and agricultural land and the preservation of natural habits that allows for the taking of mountain hare. That would be an opportunity for those who have golden eagles to exercise and use their birds in that way.

I believe that all of that is justified on the basis of the advice from our statutory advisors, NatureScot.

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.

I have a couple of points to make in response to that. I do not accept that falcons can no longer be used because of the 2020 act. That goes back to Hugh Dignon’s description of the multitude of activities that can continue in Scotland with falcons. We have pointed to their being used for a whole range of quarry. We are talking only about mountain hares here, but they are used to take other species. Equally, in the case of mountain hares, they can still be used for purposes that are licensed.

That point is frequently put to me when it comes to legislation on wildlife management in the countryside. For example, I am asked what the impact is on dogs in relation to the hunting with dogs legislation and what the impact is on the falcon in relation to this legislation. I take that all into account.

You are right to point to the 2006 act. Under that legislation, the keeper of any animal has a responsibility to ensure that they do not cause it any unnecessary pain or suffering, and that they look after its welfare. That is still the case, regardless of other changes to the law.