Seòmar agus comataidhean

Would one solution to the petitioner’s request be for the Scottish Government to invite the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service or the Lord Advocate to issue guidance indicating that no prosecutions will be taken with regard to falconers practising their sport?

—being criminalised without the opportunity of having been heard.

Can we ask NatureScot when it will invite someone from the Scottish Gamekeepers Association to join its board? It is strange that there is a group that represents the people who work daily on the land but that is completely unrepresented on NatureScot, as far as I understand? Those people are not sitting clattering keyboards—they are not keyboard warriors. They are actually managing nature and looking after animals for which they care deeply. NatureScot is denied the opportunity of the centuries of experience of people who care deeply for the countryside and the animals of Scotland.

An amendment to the Animals and Wildlife (Penalties, Protections and Powers) (Scotland) Act 2020 that dealt with the ban on shooting of mountain hares was passed at stage 3. Is it correct to say that the Scottish Government did not consider any evidence whatsoever from falconers in relation to that measure?

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?

In terms of the overall hare population, despite the controversy over the counting methods, around 1,000 is de minimis; it is negligible. Is that accurate?

I think that we should have the round-table discussion first and then write to the Scottish Government, in order to get a flavour of what people think.

I would like to add a small suggestion to what Mr Torrance suggested, which I agree with. In seeking to invite individuals with lived experience to participate in the discussion, perhaps we could ask the petitioners, who have said that they are aware of other examples, whether they would be happy to suggest to us people with lived experience, as they have knowledge of the issues. It would be good to see whether they could point us in the right direction.