Chamber and committees

We heard earlier from one of the petitioners, who confirmed that he felt that the Scottish Government should take charge of an independent analysis. That surprised me a little, because I had thought that he had perhaps envisaged an individual analysis that was independent of not only HIAL but the Scottish Government. Be that as it may, if you think that the project should be analysed and that the costs incurred to date should be studied, do you have an idea of who the right person or the right body to do that work would be?

I have no comments to make on this petition, convener.

I support what you and David Torrance have said. As we all know, for the people who are served by the Rest and Be Thankful, this is a hugely important matter. I entirely agree with the conditional approach that you have suggested. It would be very useful to get a much clearer idea from Transport Scotland and the minister about timescales for a viable proposal—when will such a proposal be forthcoming?—and, indeed, what has prevented such proposals from being brought forward. The situation has been going on for a very long time—far too long for the people on the peninsula that is served by the road.

Good morning to the witnesses. Thank you for the work that you have carried out.

I want to ask about the next steps, and the reaction from Government and others. I have two questions for each witness. First, has the group had any initial reaction to its recommendations from the Scottish Government or, indeed, anyone else and, if so, what has that been? Secondly, what are the next steps for the work that the group has done and, indeed, for the group itself?

I wonder whether Kelly McBride and the other witnesses believe that, as an essential ingredient for something happening, rather than not much happening or the momentum being lost, it is essential that there is one minister in the Scottish Government who will drive this forward, and that there is a clear lead—a civil servant official—who will do so, too. It would mean that there would be someone to, if you like, deliver momentum, but also someone with whom the buck would stop.

As a final thought, I note the point that, I think, Talat Yaqoob made about reaching those who do not usually liaise with, contact or otherwise participate in democracy with the Scottish Government or anybody else in public life. I wonder whether the duty lies with Government ministers and indeed MSPs to go out and meet those people, and, indeed, to be proactive in getting out there and going to visit them, particularly once Covid is over and we can get back into—and I put this in inverted commas—“normal life”. Does the buck stop with ministers in particular, but also with MSPs and other elected people such as councillors and so on? Should that be the primary driver on the basis that we have an individual personal responsibility, in whatever capacity we have in public life, to try to reach out to those who are disadvantaged, underrepresented and uninvolved?

Yes. Thank you very much, convener. I entirely endorse your comments.

Falconry, albeit that it is not a huge area of life in Scotland, is nonetheless an important part of rural life and the rural economy. Lots of things that falconers do are valuable and of real worth to society. I have seen falconers teach children about birds of prey at agricultural shows and game fairs such as the ones at Moy and Scone. They also take birds into schools. Children therefore learn about birds of prey directly—and probably primarily or even solely—from falconers.

From speaking to a leading falconer—not the petitioner, but another falconer—over the weekend, I know that falconers also rehabilitate birds; they make them better. That is surely something that should be recognised.

Falconry also plays a part in the control of pests, including in relation to the overpopulation of gulls, as has been mentioned, and it is part of the rural tapestry. I say that because I was very disappointed when I noticed that, in its first response last year, the Scottish Government did not say that it valued falconry; it just said that it recognised the history and culture of falconry.

On where we go from here, I am bound to reflect that, when the ban on mountain hare culling was introduced in 2020, the Werritty report, which preceded that, did not consider falconry at all. As far as I know, no one mentioned falconry in the stage 3 debate for the 2020 act, which was the first time that the proposed ban was introduced.

I have been in the Parliament for 22 years, and I think that falconers are in a unique situation, in that they have not only not had a fair hearing about their activity being banned; they have had no hearing whatsoever. They have been completely ignored. That seems to me to be redolent of the grim world that was created by the author Franz Kafka, in which people are banned from doing their preferred occupation without any opportunity to have that fair hearing, which is the first principle of natural justice—audi alteram partem.

Where do we go from here? I suggest that we take oral evidence and that the petitioner should have an opportunity to be heard and to put forward what I think is the very strong argument that the activities of falconers account for only a small proportion of mountain hares that are taken. I think that Dr Nick Fox said in the supplementary submission that we have just received that the figure is 1,000, but it is certainly a fraction of the number that are taken by shooting.

The petitioner should be heard, and I recommend that Dr Nick Fox should accompany him, if he so wishes, so that the petitioner is not alone. We should also hear from NatureScot, as it has licensing powers, which could be part of the solution, and from the Scottish Government.

I know that the committee is time constrained, but we should do that, given that we are talking about a group in society that has not had any hearing whatsoever from the Scottish Parliament. The purpose of the committee is to allow David to take on Goliath, if you like, and our particular role is to equip David with a sling.

That is a bit of a risky invitation, convener. Suffice it to say, I am delighted to join the committee, which I have always admired as the hallmark of the Scottish Parliament and a distinctive asset in allowing citizens access to it. I am pleased to play a part in it, working across party in a non-partisan fashion.

I declare an interest as a member of the Law Society of Scotland. I am on the roll of solicitors but have not practised in many a moon.

Thank you.

Good morning to both professors. I will pick up on something that Professor Donaldson—I think—said about the fact that there are 40 extant unimplemented policies for secondary schools and 34 for primary schools. Have those been looked at as part of the report? Have you identified which, if any, of those policies should be implemented and which should be consigned to the dustbin of educational history?