³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ

Moving on from that—

In that case, they are open to prosecution, so we are back to square 1, minister, with a group of people in Scotland—

If that argument applies, falconry cannot be carried out because it might take a few mountain hares. You have not answered the factual question about the impact of falconry on hares, but the evidence that we have heard—and that you have seen—is that the impact is negligible, infinitesimal, nugatory and irrelevant. You have not disputed that evidence. If you have, or if Mr Dignon has, further factual evidence, I would be very grateful if you could supply the committee with that after the meeting.

The point I want to put to you is this: you are saying that falconry is finished. Falconry cannot be practised because those who practice it face the risk of carrying out a criminal activity and therefore cannot practice their sport in Scotland. You are saying that that is correct and justified because of a law that was passed in respect of which those people had no opportunity whatsoever to be heard. Is that not a preposterous proposition?

I have two points. First, I note that Jackie Baillie referred to a PWC report on the cost of the tunnels. I am looking in our papers to see whether there is specific reference to that; perhaps there is, and I have missed it. I would be keen to get more details on that, and copies of the documents, in order to look into the points that Ms Baillie made about the relative costings, which we need to look at carefully.

Secondly, I know from when I formerly represented Lochaber a rather long time ago—when Mr Sweeney was even younger than he currently is—that, among people living in the Oban and Argyll area who are also served by the A82, there is huge support for upgrading the A82 along Loch Lomond side. Sadly, that has been the case for many decades.

I wonder whether, for fairness, we might reach out to the community—perhaps to the chamber of commerce. I know that some individuals in Lochaber and Argyll were involved, because they have strong views about the importance of proceeding with the upgrade of the road.

I guess that there are certain benefits to being an ex-minister.

To get back to the point, did you, Mr Gallant, ever get a response from the Scottish Government about the idea that it could pay for what is being suggested this morning—for which there is a very strong case—by limiting, reducing or shaving off the benefits of people, such as myself and many others, who are over 60 and are entitled to the free bass pass, even though they are well able to afford it? Did you ever get a response to that?

In addition to the suggested contents of the letters to RICS and the Law Society of Scotland, I wonder if we could add further inquiries about the complaints process. That might include asking for information on the number of complaints per annum, the number of complaints that have been upheld and the number that have been rejected in comparison with the total number of home reports.

When I was a solicitor—albeit in a different century from the one that we are now in—my experience was that most surveyors were pretty professional and thorough. I am very surprised that a hole in the roof was not spotted. That sounds like a pretty patent defect, as opposed to a latent defect. I would be interested to know how widespread such complaints are and what the upshot has been for the people who have made complaints. The petitioner says that her experience was pretty dismal, and it would be good to get the bigger picture. Could those matters could be added to the letters?

That predicted the question that I was going to ask, which was whether you could let us know what response you get from NHS Grampian. It must obviously have an opportunity to respond and give its view; that is only fair and proper. However, part of our job is to make sure that the Parliament has properly and thoroughly analysed and responded to the petitioner’s plea for the availability of the prescription of opiate substitutes, principally methadone. I am keen to see the result of the inquiries and pleased that the minister has already pursued them rigorously. Thank you for that.

You made that point in response to Mr Sweeney’s question earlier. When asked how much it would cost, you said that it would not cost anything and would be self-financing. However, to play the devil’s advocate, I will say that your thesis about why it would not cost anything relies on an assumption that people would switch from bus to train. However, if what you want was granted, and there was free rail travel for people with a disability, is it not the case that many of those people do not currently use the bus at all, not least because of practical problems such as a lack of toilet facilities? In other words, some people with a disability would use the benefit of free rail travel but do not currently travel on the bus. Therefore, is there not bound to be some extra cost?

Good morning and thank you for the petition. Your evidence is that you had no opportunity whatsoever to contribute to or be consulted on the law prior to its passage. Is that correct?

I think that that is completely wrong. I will not dwell on that, but I wanted to make that point.

Now that the law is the law—it has been passed—what is the impact of the 2020 act on falconry?