Seòmar agus comataidhean

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.

Hugh has indicated to me that he wishes to come in.

I thank Mr Sweeney for his point, and I understand that that is the premise of the petition. As I have said, I will consider all suggestions and all the ways in which the legislation that we pass impacts on the people who are affected by it. However, my contention today is that the interference in the ability of falconers to take mountain hare—which I understand is an interference, albeit that, as Hugh Dignon has pointed out, that activity can still take place elsewhere, and falconers are still able to take other species—remains justified on the backdrop of the conservation concern for the mountain hare. Of course, I am very open to considering concerns.

It is important that we reflect the situation accurately and that we use accurate language. You have just put it to me that I said earlier that none of the normal processes were followed, but that is simply not the case. What I said is that the business and regulatory impact assessment that we would normally have wanted to undertake was not possible because of the late stage of the amendment.

You have asked about what happened in practice. An amendment was lodged by a party that is not in Government and, as would normally happen, the Government considered how it would approach that amendment. Of course, the amendment being lodged at stage 3 means that it did not form part of the substantive scrutiny and debate that had taken place up to that point. When an amendment is put in front of the Scottish Government, the Government then responds by doing the research that we need to do into how we will respond to that amendment, including speaking with our statutory advisors. The conservation concerns that NatureScot put to us, together with the significant concerns of the public, brought us to the view that the amendment was acceptable and we would work with the industry thereafter to formalise the licensing scheme.

Again, owing to the speed with which stage 3, when the amendment was lodged, happened, we were not able to do the normal statutory assessments of the amendment before the legislation was passed. However, NatureScot worked closely with a range of stakeholders in the aftermath of the bill’s passage to design the licensing scheme that went alongside protected status for the mountain hare. They included—I think—the Scottish Hawk Board and others.

The last part of your question really sets the context, because we are talking about mountain hares, which are the one quarry that is now protected owing to the change in the law. The rest of the spectrum of quarry that falconers can take is still available to them. I point out that, even despite the protected status of the mountain hare, hares can still be taken for licensable purposes. There are two examples to mention: falconers can still take mountain hare under licence, and they can take other quarry.

On that, I will pass over to Stan Whitaker from NatureScot, because I understand that some licences have been issued since the 1 March implementation date. He might give us a bit of insight into where the practice continues in Scotland.

The point is that, when the trees are young and vulnerable—