Seòmar agus comataidhean

I guess that there are certain benefits to being an ex-minister.

To get back to the point, did you, Mr Gallant, ever get a response from the Scottish Government about the idea that it could pay for what is being suggested this morning—for which there is a very strong case—by limiting, reducing or shaving off the benefits of people, such as myself and many others, who are over 60 and are entitled to the free bass pass, even though they are well able to afford it? Did you ever get a response to that?

In addition to the suggested contents of the letters to RICS and the Law Society of Scotland, I wonder if we could add further inquiries about the complaints process. That might include asking for information on the number of complaints per annum, the number of complaints that have been upheld and the number that have been rejected in comparison with the total number of home reports.

When I was a solicitor—albeit in a different century from the one that we are now in—my experience was that most surveyors were pretty professional and thorough. I am very surprised that a hole in the roof was not spotted. That sounds like a pretty patent defect, as opposed to a latent defect. I would be interested to know how widespread such complaints are and what the upshot has been for the people who have made complaints. The petitioner says that her experience was pretty dismal, and it would be good to get the bigger picture. Could those matters could be added to the letters?

That predicted the question that I was going to ask, which was whether you could let us know what response you get from NHS Grampian. It must obviously have an opportunity to respond and give its view; that is only fair and proper. However, part of our job is to make sure that the Parliament has properly and thoroughly analysed and responded to the petitioner’s plea for the availability of the prescription of opiate substitutes, principally methadone. I am keen to see the result of the inquiries and pleased that the minister has already pursued them rigorously. Thank you for that.

You made that point in response to Mr Sweeney’s question earlier. When asked how much it would cost, you said that it would not cost anything and would be self-financing. However, to play the devil’s advocate, I will say that your thesis about why it would not cost anything relies on an assumption that people would switch from bus to train. However, if what you want was granted, and there was free rail travel for people with a disability, is it not the case that many of those people do not currently use the bus at all, not least because of practical problems such as a lack of toilet facilities? In other words, some people with a disability would use the benefit of free rail travel but do not currently travel on the bus. Therefore, is there not bound to be some extra cost?

Good morning and thank you for the petition. Your evidence is that you had no opportunity whatsoever to contribute to or be consulted on the law prior to its passage. Is that correct?

I think that that is completely wrong. I will not dwell on that, but I wanted to make that point.

Now that the law is the law—it has been passed—what is the impact of the 2020 act on falconry?

Earlier in your evidence, you spoke about mountain hares being taken by birds that are used in falconry. I want to make sure that I understood the issue properly. It was your evidence that those numbers are very small compared with those accounted for by shooting. You gave some figures, but will you clarify what your view is on the overall impact of falconry on the number of mountain hares that are killed in relation to the overall statistics regarding hares? I know that there is a lot of controversy about the numbers, because those on the country sports side think that hares are not under threat at all and that there is a lack of evidence, which they want to sort. What is your view about the impact of falconry on the number of hares that are killed in Scotland?

I have a small addendum to Mr Stewart’s recommendation, which I entirely support. The Scottish Government’s short-life working group includes representatives of the taxi and private hire trade as well as representatives from Transport Scotland, local authorities and Unite the Union. Could we ask the Government to specify who those representatives are and whether they are sufficient? Is the group rather top-heavy with people from public sector bodies and not sufficiently representative of the range of interests in the taxi and private hire sector? Could we ask the Scottish Government whether the membership of the short-life working group might be extended to include greater representation from the people whose lives and businesses are affected?

In particular, we should tease out whether complaints that have been upheld have resulted in a remedy—namely, a financial recompense—and whether, if that has been the case, the recompense has been provided by the indemnity insurers or by the surveyors.

It is probably a complicated area, convener, because there will be an overlap between whether the solicitor or the surveyor was negligent. It could be that, in some cases, both might be negligent, in which case there would be a recourse to dual indemnities: the solicitor’s professional indemnity insurance and the surveyor’s insurance. Nonetheless, it would be useful to get a picture rather than to look at the matter in isolation.

It is a matter of record that falconry was not mentioned in the 2020 debate. It is fair to say that, when Parliament creates a criminal offence, it is essential that proper consideration is given to any conceivable circumstances of prosecution. That simply did not happen here, which is quite shocking. I think that you are owed an apology from the Scottish Government for that.

I move on to solutions. One solution would be a change in the law, which you have said would not require primary legislation. Will you explain exactly how, in practice, your solution could be implemented? I had thought that primary legislation would be required—namely, an amendment to the 2020 act. Are you saying that subordinate legislation could be used as a means of solving that, or is some other solution possible, such as a general licence? I think that Dr Fox states in his evidence that that is possible.