I want to move on from swifts and pheasants to talk about the other end of the bird family, which is the eagle population—not Tim Eagle, but the golden eagle. Specifically, I want to talk about why Stanley, the sad golden eagle, is sad and why I want the committee to make him happy.

I am grateful to the cabinet secretary for that explanation. How would intention be established in those circumstances?

Thank you, Christine.

Amendment 157, which is the only amendment that I have lodged to the bill, deals with a specific issue that has been raised with me by constituents. It seeks to amend section 16 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 to permit NatureScot to grant licences to allow the taking of mountain hares for the purpose of falconry. I lodged the amendment on behalf of my constituents Barry and Roxanne Blyther, who run a business called Elite Falconry in Fife.

As members might be aware, there are very few falconers in Scotland—there are no more than a few dozen—and it is very much a niche activity. However, the matter is very important to those who participate in the business and sport of falconry. My amendment seeks to address what I think was an unintended consequence of the Animals and Wildlife (Penalties, Protections and Powers) (Scotland) Act 2020, which includes the protection of mountain hares.

Members who were in Parliament at that time might recall that, when the bill passed through Parliament, a late stage 3 amendment was accepted to include mountain hares among protected species. Because that was introduced at stage 3, there was no appropriate opportunity to allow proper consultation and discussion on the implications of that.

Had that been permitted, an unintended consequence would have become obvious: the impact on the sport and activities of falconers. The consequence of the change to the law in 2020 is that someone who flies birds of prey that swoop down and kill a mountain hare, which is in their nature to do, over moorland is guilty of an offence. That makes it very hazardous for falconers to do that activity where mountain hares might live, so they are severely restricted.

Therefore, the purpose of amendment 157 is to permit NatureScot to license falconers so that they can continue their activity on moorland, where mountain hares might be, without the fear of being prosecuted. When issuing such licences, NatureScot would be required to consider the welfare of mountain hares and their population numbers in the normal way, so the amendment is not about writing a blank cheque and putting the mountain hare population at risk.

Members might be aware that the issue has been assiduously pursued by my constituents through the Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee. They might recall that Jackson Carlaw, the convener of that committee, hosted Stanley the sad golden eagle in the parliamentary garden. I recall, as other members will do with some amusement, the terror on Jackson Carlaw’s face as he stood in the close vicinity of the golden eagle. That committee supported the petition and urged the Scottish Government to change the law in the area.

My sensible proposition will allow NatureScot to license falconers to continue their activities on moorland. It would not have any serious impact on the mountain hare population given the numbers involved. We would allow falconers to conduct their business without fear of prosecution. I hope that colleagues on the committee who are sympathetic to golden eagles and falconers will grant their support and make Stanley the sad golden eagle a happy golden eagle instead.

I think that Mr Whittle perhaps misunderstands amendment 189, which relates to a situation in which an assisted death has taken place and the family has concerns that the criteria were not met. In effect, it would enable a family that was concerned to ask for a review of the assisted death process at that point, after the event. It would not impact on the situation to which Mr Whittle refers.

I have two amendments in the group—amendments 199 and 203. Amendment 199 deals with the issue of independent oversight. It proposes the creation of an

“Assisted Dying Safeguards and Oversight Body.”

I am grateful to Daniel Johnson for making the arguments as to why some independent oversight is required, although I think that my solution is better than his—he proposes a parliamentary body to oversee operation of the bill, and I propose an independent body. Members will see from the wording of the amendment how that body would be made up.

As Daniel Johnson alluded to, the reason why that is necessary is that, as it stands, the bill relies entirely on internal reporting and ministerial review but does not provide for a permanent independent authority that is charged with monitoring how the bill will operate in practice, ensure compliance with safeguards or investigate when things go wrong. When we are dealing with a new law on life and death, it is essential that we have those safeguards in place. Indeed, as we have seen in other jurisdictions where such oversight is missing, there are risks of a slippery slope, where regulations become loosened over time, eligibility expanded and terminology blurred.

Amendment 199 seeks to prevent that. It would establish an independent safeguard and oversight body with clear and enforceable duties. Its responsibilities would include the need to review every case within 14 days after the substance was provided, maintain a national register of authorised medical professionals, investigate concerns about conduct or competence, audit compliance with law and regulations and publish anonymised data on every assisted death, including demographic and clinical information. The body would be composed of legal, medical, ethical and patient advocacy experts. Crucially, none of its members could be involved in providing assisted suicide themselves. Everyone acting under the act would be legally required to comply with the directions of the independent body.

The amendment is about vigilance. If the Parliament is determined to cross the moral line into assisted suicide, it must not do so blindly or complacently. An oversight body is the minimum protection against the erosion of safeguards and the slow normalisation of assisted suicide that could happen under the bill.

Amendment 203 proposes an adjustment to section 27 of the bill. It would provide that review reports specify how many medical reviews took place, what they discovered and whether any cases were referred for potential prosecution. It would add real transparency and accountability to how the act will operate in practice.

The purpose of amendment 189 is to allow the next of kin or a relative to request an independent medical review if they believe that the deceased did not meet the eligibility criteria in the bill, in which case two independent doctors who were not involved in the original case must examine all relevant records and, if they find evidence of a breach, refer the matter to the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service. The number and outcome of such reviews must be included in the statutory review under section 27 of the bill.

The reason for the amendment is that, when we legislate on life and death, we have a duty not only to write laws that are clear but to ensure that they can be trusted. As it stands, the bill contains no mechanism for what happens when an assisted death may have taken place outside the law. There is no mechanism for families to raise concerns, no means to review what has happened and no pathway to justice if something has gone wrong.

I wish to press amendment 189, but if members are not inclined to support it, I encourage them to support the amendments in the name of Miles Briggs.

I think that that is because those who had the closest interest in the matter would be members of the family of the person who had opted for an assisted death. They would have the closest knowledge of the individual and, therefore, the biggest interest in the matter. One could conceivably extend the provision to any person, but it would be unreasonable to expect a review to be carried out at the request of anyone. The amendment is quite narrowly drawn, so it relates only to next of kin or family members, as they are defined under the original legal definition.

The member makes a reasonable point. The family would have to have a genuine concern that something had happened that was improper in order to be able to ask for a review, but that could happen in such a case.

I have taken a lot of interventions, and I think that I have come to the end of my remarks. I note that my colleague Miles Briggs has two amendments in this group, which I encourage committee members to support.

I move amendment 189.

That is correct. However, this is about taking a belt-and-braces approach by formalising that position and putting something in the bill that makes it absolutely clear what the route is for a family to go down in the event that they have concerns. We are all very much aware of the pressure on the police, the justice system and the procurator fiscal service. Creating a specific mechanism is a way in which those concerns can be raised on a much simpler basis and it ensures that, when complaints are made to the procurator fiscal, they are backed up with the appropriate medical evidence, which is what we are trying to achieve.