Seòmar agus comataidhean

I very much concur with that recommended route. When I read the Scottish Government’s response, I, too, was slightly disappointed. I had hoped that, given the circumstances and the fact that the legislation emerged out of a stage 3 amendment, discussion with the Government might have led to some sort of resolution. I felt that the Government gave a rather disdainful brush-off to the issue that we are trying to explore. Therefore, taking evidence seems to be a reasonable course of action.

Are colleagues content that we proceed on the basis that Mr Ewing has suggested? It might also be useful to write to the Game & Wildlife Conservation Trust and the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, just to find out their wider concerns about the conservation impact of the proposal. Are members content with that, too?

Members indicated agreement.

Are colleagues content to keep the petition open on the basis that has been suggested and to take those actions?

Members indicated agreement.

I am mindful of the time, but I will bring in our other two witnesses. Talat, would you like to comment further, or has Kelly summed things up?

Fiona, is there anything that you would like to add?

Fergus, do you have any other questions?

Are there any final thoughts on that?

On that note, I draw our session to an end. I thank Kelly McBride, Fiona Garven and Talat Yaqoob for their comprehensive and helpful answers. That very useful discussion complements our previous evidence session, and I thank you all very much for your contributions and your participation today.

With that, I suspend the meeting for a few moments.

PE1859, which was lodged by Barry Blyther, is on retaining falconers’ rights to practise upland falconry in Scotland. We last considered the petition on 1 December 2021.

The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to amend the Animals and Wildlife (Penalties, Protections and Powers) (Scotland) Act 2020 to allow mountain hares to be hunted for the purposes of falconry.

In our meeting in December, we agreed to write to the Scottish Government to seek its views on how it expects captive falcons to differentiate between legal and illegal species. We thought that the whole thing sounded a bit difficult to follow through. For example, how is a bird of prey supposed to tell the difference between a rabbit and a mountain hare when it is exhibiting natural behaviours?

The committee also asked the Scottish Government to clarify when falconers would face prosecution should their bird take a mountain hare, including what the penalties might be for a breach, and how the current legislation is enforced.

The Scottish Government’s response states:

“It is the responsibility of the falconer to eliminate, or at least significantly reduce ... risk ... by only undertaking falconry where mountain hare are unlikely to be present.”

I felt that we had verged on the slightly ridiculous there. I will not say that the landscape is riddled with mountain hares, but it transpired that the Government’s definition of where they are unlikely to be present amounts to some 2.5 per cent of Scotland. Allegedly, they are present in 97.5 per cent of the landscape. It reached a point at which I almost felt as though the Scottish Government was advocating that falcons should be trained in the use of satnav, because they were apparently to understand that the M8, the Harthill service stations, Aberdeen and points towards the coast were where they could go about their business. That all struck me as being slightly removed from reality and playing to the questions that we were considering.

The final submission from the petitioner focuses on the role of falconry in pest control, and points out that there is an exemption for falconry so that gulls can be deterred, even though they carry the same level of protections as the mountain hare.

The Scottish Government’s submission notes that Police Scotland is responsible for enforcing legislation and that penalties for wildlife crime vary depending on what offence has been committed.

I know that Fergus Ewing is quite keen to contribute on that particular item in the first instance.

The next petition is PE1914, on banning school uniforms in secondary schools, which was lodged by Matthew Lewis Simpson. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to remove the requirement for school uniforms for older school pupils. The petitioner cites a range of reasons for lodging the petition, including uniform costs for low-income families, pupil choice and the need for comfortable and weather-appropriate clothing options.

The petition was previously considered on 19 January, when we agreed to write to the Scottish Government, the Children and Young People’s Commissioner Scotland, the National Parent Forum of Scotland and the Scottish Youth Parliament. At that meeting, we heard that the Scottish Government had committed to updating its school uniform guidance and that a public consultation on the issue was imminent. We have now received responses from the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills and all the other stakeholders that we have contacted, included the Scottish Youth Parliament, which was unable to come to a determination on the issue. I thought that that was interesting.

At this stage, we probably want to keep the petition open, pending the consultation that the Scottish Government is about to undertake. We believe that it is likely to take place during the summer.

Would colleagues like to make any comments or recommendations?

Do colleagues agree to keep the petition open and to proceed on the basis that has just been discussed?

Members indicated agreement.