Seòmar agus comataidhean

Well, the minister who took the legislation forward was a junior minister under both you and Ms Cunningham.

You are quite right that the amendment that dealt with the issue was lodged at stage 3 of that bill, so the Scottish Government was not able to undertake a business and regulatory impact assessment, for example, as we normally would. However, as I said in my opening remarks, as the minister who is now responsible I am always open to monitoring the impact of legislation and, equally, to hearing concerns about its effect.

I accept that the normal assessment could not be undertaken because of time. I accept that point. I do not accept that the falconry community could not have been heard because—as you know—when you take legislation through as a minister, you have an open door.

The licence is about control and protecting young timber and agricultural land. It is about conserving natural habitats. That brings me back to the point that I made at the beginning, which is that, owing to the conservation status of the mountain hare, it has been viewed by Parliament and the public as not appropriate—

Please let me finish the point. It is not appropriate to be taking mountain hares for sporting purposes.

I will turn to my colleague Hugh Dignon in a second. The correction that I will make to that point is to say that not all falcons could or would take a mountain hare. Only an eagle would.

No, that is the responsibility of the falconer.

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.