Chamber and committees

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.

You are probably not helping through giving us answers, but you are maybe helping us to ask the right questions. That is progress, so thank you for that.

I turn to Kayla-Megan with a similar question, but perhaps put it more in the context of music. Do you have similar concerns about how we create original music in the future if AI will just do it better?

That is quite an optimistic outlook, which is good to hear.

I will follow up on one point you made about protecting intellectual property, which I think is an interesting one for us to look at. I can ask AI to produce me a piece of music in the style of, say, Beethoven, and it will do that. Beethoven is long dead and long out of copyright, so there are no IP issues.

If I ask AI to produce me a piece of music in the style of, say, Lewis Capaldi, it will do that too. However, Lewis Capaldi is still with us, he is still producing music and his music is protected. How does Lewis Capaldi protect his brand when anybody can produce a song that sounds just like him?

You have given us a lot to think about, and some helpful ideas about what changes need to be made in a policy perspective to protect original content. That was very useful—thank you.

Thank you, convener, and good morning to the witnesses.

Dex, the point that you just made is what I was going to ask about. What does AI mean for the workforce? Last week, we were looking at a report from Microsoft about the sorts of jobs that might suffer from development of AI, and in the top five were writers and authors. What does that mean for human creativity? What will the role be in future for original, human-created output? Is AI effectively just derivative on the work humans have done? If we are squeezing humans out of the picture, what does that mean? Does it mean that we will not have innovation in the future?

Good.

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.