Seòmar agus comataidhean

In the first instance, are colleagues content for us to proceed on those lines?

I think that Mr Ewing would like to make a further suggestion.

The first reason why a debate would be useful is the circumstances whereby the ban came into force, which was through a stage 3 amendment on which the petitioner and his fellow falconers had no opportunity whatsoever to be heard. In fact, it seems that nobody thought of them at all, and they did not have the opportunity to state their case. The whole point of the Scottish Parliament is that everybody should be able to state their case in the legislative process at the first stage. Stage 3 is not supposed to be used for the purposes of introducing brand-new material, particularly not legal bans that can result in criminal convictions. Therefore, of itself, that point of principle deserves to be highlighted in Parliament.

However, turning briefly to the arguments on the substance, it seems to me that the effect on hares of allowing the continuance of falconry would be de minimis. NatureScot has admitted that the number of hares that would be affected is minuscule and completely irrelevant to the question of the size of the population. Moreover, I understand from the petitioner, who has kindly given us a great deal of his wisdom and experience, as others have, that it is only certain types of birds of prey—eagles and hawks, I think—that will go for hares. Others will not and cannot. However, eagles and hawks need to prey on hares. Alternative prey do not work, so that suggestion, which has been made by some, is completely irrelevant.

The last thing that I will say—this is really quite sad—is that the petitioner has highlighted that the eagle that he has is now self-harming, because it cannot behave naturally. It is not allowed to, and the petitioner does not want to break the law, as a law-abiding citizen. As a result, that bird is suffering—because of something that happened in Parliament on which his owner and his owner’s peers had no opportunity even to state their case. The really disappointing thing in this is that the Scottish Government has not fessed up to that and said that a mistake was made. It has shrugged off all responsibility.

That is perhaps a bit of a rehearsal for the debate, convener, but it is heartfelt nonetheless and I hope that members might feel that a debate is needed. It would not need to be an extended debate—it would not need to be three hours long—but it would allow the matter to be ventilated. I think that there would be considerable interest among colleagues, because I recall from the debate that there was some disquiet among some of the older hands, if I may say so, that the procedure that was followed for stage 3 of that bill was not appropriate.

It seems a most unfortunate role—

Thank you, minister. We have listened carefully, and, in the comprehensive responses that you have given, a number of our questions have been answered without our having to put them, so that brings us to the end of our questions. Is there anything else that you feel that we might not have touched on that you want to add before we conclude?

Thank you, Mr Ewing. I agree that there is broader interest in the matter in the Parliament. Indeed, there was considerable interest when Stanley the eagle visited the precincts of the Parliament.

I think that we were disappointed by the evidence that underpinned the decision that was made and the digging in that we heard during the round-table evidence session that we held. We had hoped that the logic and evidence that we had heard might lead the Government to take a different position, but that is not the case.

When we next approach the parliamentary authorities in relation to committee debating time, are colleagues minded to seek to have a debate on the issue in the chamber?

Members indicated agreement.

We will therefore seek to do that and to highlight the issue more generally as a result. We will see what progress can be made in that way and take forward those actions. We had a well-informed debate on surgical mesh not long ago and then our committee debate on our report, but I expect us to have an opportunity for a debate in the chamber in the new year. Therefore, we will seek to have the issue of allowing mountain hares to be hunted for falconry purposes as one of possibly two short debates that we would take to the chamber on that occasion.

Yes, thank you. Again, I would say to the petitioner that it is something that they and we should keep an eye on. I am conscious that not all cancers are terminal illnesses and that, therefore, a number of people might be excluded who might nonetheless benefit from the payment at an earlier point in their treatment. That issue is something that can come back to us at a later date. However, given the Scottish Government’s position, I am afraid that there is nothing further that the committee can do to take forward the aims of the petition. Are colleagues content to close the petition on that basis?

Members indicated agreement.

As there does not appear to be any other suggestions, we will keep the petition open and return to it on receipt of responses to the points that Mr Torrance has proposed.

In essence, the response that we have received suggests that the particular cohort that was not vaccinated will receive general protection through herd immunity. Are our colleagues content to proceed on the basis of Mr Torrance’s suggestions?

Members indicated agreement.

The next petition, PE1969, which was lodged by Gemma Clark, calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to bring forward legislation to fully decriminalise abortion services in Scotland, and to make provisions to ensure that abortion services are available up to the 24th week of pregnancy across all parts of Scotland.

We previously considered the petition at our meeting on 22 February, when we agreed to seek the views of a number of stakeholder organisations. Following that discussion, we received responses from the Humanist Society Scotland, the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children, the British Pregnancy Advisory Service, the Catholic Bishops Conference of Scotland, Christian Action, Research and Education—CARE—the Free Church of Scotland, the British Medical Association and the petitioner. We have also received a submission from Monica Lennon MSP, who is unable to join us in person today, and an update from the Scottish Government, which highlights the commitment in this year’s programme for government to review the law on abortion. Requests to provide written evidence have also been received from the Scottish Council on Human Bioethics and from the Evangelical Alliance.

Those in support of the petition suggest that abortion should be treated as a medical matter rather than a criminal matter and that decriminalisation would bring Scotland in line with international human rights standards. In contrast, those who have concerns about moves to decriminalise abortion argue that keeping abortion within criminal law is essential for women’s safety, because there must be a way of prosecuting abusive partners who seek to pressure or coerce a woman into aborting a pregnancy. Some responses also argued that the majority of abortions are carried out not on medical grounds but because the pregnancy is unwanted and raised concerns that reforms could introduce the possibility of sex-selective terminations.

The Scottish Council on Human Bioethics and the Evangelical Alliance have asked to provide written evidence, but that depends on how the committee wishes to respond to the petition. Do colleagues have any suggestions?