Seòmar agus comataidhean

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.

I will pass over to NatureScot to answer on whether that is small number of licenses, given that the legislation has been in force for only a short period.

It depends on the context. The legislation has been in force only since March 2021 and the division of licences reflects the discussion that we had about the fact that mountain hares are far more frequently taken by shooting than by birds of prey. That is just a reflection of the state of play.

I am not sure that that is the case. I think that they can take off in other areas of the country. Obviously, a trained falconer would know a great deal more about that than I or we do, but we say that the quarry that is being pursued is the principal factor that differentiates upland falconry from other types, although there are other variables. Stan, do you want to come in?

That is a policy question, to be fair. We act on the basis of advice that NatureScot gives us on the conservation status of and risk to animals, but it is for us to make the decisions. I absolutely accept that there is a marked difference in the numbers that are taken by shooting mountain hare and those that are taken through falconry. However, I come back to the core point, which is that our statutory advisers, NatureScot, are telling us, in a nature emergency, that there is a conservation risk to mountain hare. We have to be prepared to take action in the face of that. That action has to be proportionate but, equally, consistent.

Again, I acknowledge the concerns of the petitioner, and everything that the committee has said, but, equally, I ask how we could justify action that restricted people’s ability to take an animal for recreational purposes by shooting but did not apply similar conditions on those who would take it by other means. It is about consistency.

As I have said, for example, throughout the current consideration of the Hunting With Dogs (Scotland) Bill, we are grappling with those questions of consistency in all the ways that people seek to hunt with dogs in the countryside. We have to have a consistent approach.

I do not think that Mr Whitaker said that NatureScot has “no idea”. What he said, I think, was that such figures are not collected.

Will you repeat the statement?

It was specifically to do with the threatened status of the mountain hare as a whole.

Mr Ewing, I understand that you were the cabinet secretary at the time—