Seòmar agus comataidhean

Are we agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

Yes—I think that I saw some engagement from the gallery there, so I suspect that the petitioners will be able to assist us on one or two of those issues, if the clerks wish to liaise further with them.

We are interested in taking forward the issues that the petition raises, and we have identified a fairly comprehensive range of agencies and individuals from whom we will seek further evidence that we can consider in due course. Are members content with that?

Members indicated agreement.

PE1970, which was lodged by Sharon Fairley on behalf of the Scottish Private Nurseries Association, is on the creation of an online account for parents to manage the 1,140 hours of early learning and childcare funding. It calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to reform the funding model for the 1,140 hours of early years learning and childcare to allow parents to have direct control of childcare funding via an online account.

The Scottish Parliament information centre briefing highlights:

“The Funding Follows the Child approach is intended to be ‘provider neutral’”,

which allows

“families ... to choose their preferred ELC setting”.

It notes:

“Submissions to the Education, Children and Young People Committee ... argued that some PVI providers’ funding from local authorities was not meeting the full cost of the place.”

The Scottish Government states in its submission that it consulted on the delivery of ELC and received

“some support for ELC accounts”,

but it notes that the limitations were a

“lack of certainty for private providers and local authorities; and risk of parents using funds for other things.”

The submission also notes that investment and time would be required to deliver a new system.

The National Day Nurseries Association has written to the committee and has stated its support for the action called for in the petition. It highlights discrepancies in funding between local authority ELC and other providers, and it argues that a childcare passport would provide parents with choice, flexibility and affordability. It notes that

“it is difficult for local authorities to be both funder and provider”.

Do colleagues have any comments to make or suggestions for action?

Are colleagues content with that?

Members indicated agreement.

Are members content with those proposals?

Members indicated agreement.

In making that suggestion, I should declare that I, too, am a supporter of Mr McArthur’s proposed bill in principle.

Agenda item 2 is consideration of continued petitions. The first builds on the visit to Parliament of Stanley the golden eagle, which we enjoyed a fortnight ago. Therefore, we are discussing petition PE1859, which is entitled, “Retain falconers rights to practice upland falconry in Scotland”. The petition was lodged by Barry Blyther, and it calls on the Scottish Parliament

“to urge the Scottish Government to amend the Animals and Wildlife Act 2020 to allow mountain hares to be hunted for the purposes of falconry.”

The committee will recall that we heard directly from Barry Blyther at the meeting on 7 December. Once again, I thank Barry, Stanley and—I think—Roxanne for their contributions and assistance.

This morning, we are joined by Màiri McAllan MSP, who is the Minister for Environment and Land Reform. Welcome. We are also joined by Hugh Dignon, who is the head of the wildlife management unit at the Scottish Government, and Stan Whitaker, who is a wildlife manager for NatureScot. Good morning, and thank you all for being here. We have a lot to get through today so we are making an early start. Members would like to explore a number of questions. Do you want to say anything before we move to questions?

At a previous evidence session, the petitioner clarified that the petition relates to upland falconry, and that there are different practices and different types of falconry. Upland falconry is what is relevant to the committee’s consideration of the petition. What is your understanding of upland falconry, and in what way do you understand it to differ from other falconry practices?

You talked about a distinction that you said we cannot make. The petitioners’ argument is that there are natural behavioural characteristics. There is clearly a difference in behaviour between someone who shoots hares with a gun and a bird that is displaying the natural characteristics that it has exhibited here in Scotland for an estimated 5,000 years, but that have now been made illegal.

I appreciate the fact that you are here in good faith. It has been testy because we have become quite exercised across all parties in the consideration of the petition and the evidence that we have received.

You talk about the evidence from NatureScot but I am trying to understand the circumstances. This was a stage 3 amendment. You said earlier that none of the normal practices or procedures were carried out. From Mr Ewing’s questions, we have established that there was no outreach, no evidence taken and no mention of falconry whatsoever before the amendment. In what circumstances did the amendment to the legislation at stage 3 arise? Did somebody pick up the phone or push open the door and say, “Heck! We have just realised that we forgot all about falconry in this legislation. We had better rush through a stage 3 amendment”? You talk about the advice from NatureScot, but it was not received at any point during the progress of the bill through Parliament. It was received as an afterthought so that you lodged a stage 3 amendment with no consultation, consideration or discussion.