���˿���

Earlier in your evidence, you spoke about mountain hares being taken by birds that are used in falconry. I want to make sure that I understood the issue properly. It was your evidence that those numbers are very small compared with those accounted for by shooting. You gave some figures, but will you clarify what your view is on the overall impact of falconry on the number of mountain hares that are killed in relation to the overall statistics regarding hares? I know that there is a lot of controversy about the numbers, because those on the country sports side think that hares are not under threat at all and that there is a lack of evidence, which they want to sort. What is your view about the impact of falconry on the number of hares that are killed in Scotland?

I have a small addendum to Mr Stewart’s recommendation, which I entirely support. The Scottish Government’s short-life working group includes representatives of the taxi and private hire trade as well as representatives from Transport Scotland, local authorities and Unite the Union. Could we ask the Government to specify who those representatives are and whether they are sufficient? Is the group rather top-heavy with people from public sector bodies and not sufficiently representative of the range of interests in the taxi and private hire sector? Could we ask the Scottish Government whether the membership of the short-life working group might be extended to include greater representation from the people whose lives and businesses are affected?

In particular, we should tease out whether complaints that have been upheld have resulted in a remedy—namely, a financial recompense—and whether, if that has been the case, the recompense has been provided by the indemnity insurers or by the surveyors.

It is probably a complicated area, convener, because there will be an overlap between whether the solicitor or the surveyor was negligent. It could be that, in some cases, both might be negligent, in which case there would be a recourse to dual indemnities: the solicitor’s professional indemnity insurance and the surveyor’s insurance. Nonetheless, it would be useful to get a picture rather than to look at the matter in isolation.

It is a matter of record that falconry was not mentioned in the 2020 debate. It is fair to say that, when Parliament creates a criminal offence, it is essential that proper consideration is given to any conceivable circumstances of prosecution. That simply did not happen here, which is quite shocking. I think that you are owed an apology from the Scottish Government for that.

I move on to solutions. One solution would be a change in the law, which you have said would not require primary legislation. Will you explain exactly how, in practice, your solution could be implemented? I had thought that primary legislation would be required—namely, an amendment to the 2020 act. Are you saying that subordinate legislation could be used as a means of solving that, or is some other solution possible, such as a general licence? I think that Dr Fox states in his evidence that that is possible.

In that situation, any falconry at all could lead to a falconer facing prosecution.

Thank you, convener, and good morning to our witnesses. Thank you for coming along. If I may say so, Mr Gallant, you make a strong case for the extension of concessionary travel to people with a disability on the grounds of equity and avoiding discrimination. I hope that the Scottish Government will respond sympathetically after the review.

I want to ask about one point that you raised before the petition was lodged. You explained that the cost of providing free rail travel for disabled people could easily be met by raising the starting age for free travel for senior citizens from 60 to 61. I must say that I hope that the Scottish Government will consider that suggestion. Fortunately—or unfortunately—I am 65, so for the past five years I have been entitled to a free bus pass. I have never taken it up, but frankly I am a bit puzzled about why I, as a fairly well-paid person, should need that support, on the grounds of equity. I would far prefer that people with a disability had access to free rail travel than people who can afford their own public transport costs.

I have got that off my chest, convener. Without revealing secrets, I know that the Scottish Government previously considered that point at my instigation, but nothing ended up happening.

I preface my question by pointing out that I am not, of course, a clinician, but I want to raise an issue that was referred to in evidence. There was some concern that dihydrocodeine has been prescribed in NHS Grampian. We had some concerns about the appropriateness of that. During last week’s evidence session, I took the opportunity of asking Dr Hunter about it, and she said:

“Dihydrocodeine is sometimes prescribed in custodial settings. There is guidance on exceptional circumstances within the UK guidance that I mentioned. Its prescription should not be routine as a replacement, but there are some exceptional circumstances—including when it is not possible to get access to existing prescribed medication safely—in which it would be used by an experienced clinician.”—[Official Report, Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee, 23 November 2022; c 4.]

To be fair, we are seeking a response from NHS Grampian about this matter, as is only right and proper, and I am not sure whether we have that yet. I just wondered whether I could raise the issue with you and ask what the Scottish Government’s view is of the use of dihydrocodeine and whether it should be minimised, thus ensuring the availability of methadone, which I imagine would be the normal opiate substitute that is prescribed in most cases, at least in accordance with my understanding. Without casting any aspersion on or blaming NHS Grampian, I just want to raise the general issue with you, minister, to see what the Scottish Government’s view is because it was raised, either by the petitioner or others, in evidence.

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?