Chamber and committees

It is a wee quick question on the back of Ruth Maguire’s questions about the west of Scotland and other existing laws, such as the Public Order Act 2023. You said earlier that the bill is about preventing any act of intimidation, harassment or influence from happening in the first place, instead of having to go after a person after an act has taken place.

I know that other countries have created similar legislation. For 30 years, I would go into the operating theatre in the morning; I would sometimes see protests next to my place of work, and I was a young woman when I worked in California. This is about intimidating people who are accessing their workplace as well as those accessing health services, and I am interested to know how we learn from other countries and the legislation that they have implemented. How can we do that, and how can we then use post-legislative scrutiny to see whether further information needs to be added or things need to be revised?

On extending or reducing zones—when we build new hospitals or stop current hospitals from providing the care that they deliver—the provisions in the bill on ministers’ ability to extend or reduce zones rather than that decision going through further parliamentary scrutiny or statutory instruments raised concerns. Should there be further oversight, not just of ministers extending and reducing zones, but in terms of going through a further parliamentary process?

My question is in a similar vein to Colin Smyth’s.

The NHS board is working with the National Crime Agency, the UK National Cyber Security Centre, the Scottish Government and the Information Commissioner to mitigate and investigate the recent cyberattack. It was clear at yesterday’s NHS briefing that the board was not able to provide full information, as advised by those professional agencies, but one thing that is clear is that cyberattacks will become more commonplace. Will the cabinet secretary provide further information on how the lessons that are learned from the NHS D and G event, including the business continuity plan, will be shared with other public bodies in Scotland to ensure that they are prepared to prevent, as far as possible, a similar attack in the future?

As we discussed at stage 2, the need for monitoring and reporting must be balanced with the resources that are available to the Scottish Government and other stakeholders. In response to the stage 1 report, the then lead minister for the bill, Gillian Martin, emphasised the Government’s commitment to additional reporting where that would be beneficial, and I welcomed that. Amendments 76, 78 and 80 seek to require the monitoring of section 16AA licences and their impact.

One of the key objectives of the bill is to tackle raptor persecution on grouse shooting estates through the implementation of section 16AA licensing provisions. The Werritty review highlighted the significant impact of criminal activities on certain grouse moors on the populations of three raptor species: the golden eagle, the hen harrier and the peregrine falcon. Indeed, there have been criminal investigations recently into the missing female golden eagle called Merrick in part of my South Scotland region. The merlin has also been identified as being impacted by increased rotational burning, and, as a significant proportion of the merlin population nests on moorland, it may be affected by the land management activities that are covered in the bill.

Regular monitoring is therefore essential to assess the bill’s effectiveness in curbing such persecution. Considering the evidence that has been presented throughout the bill’s passage through Parliament, I strongly believe that it is important to have a requirement to undertake raptor population assessments.

I move amendment 76.

Give me a wee second to finish that thought, please, given that it is 19:03.

There are different permitted reasons for carrying out muirburn, depending on whether it is on peatland and whether it is carried out during the muirburn season.

I give way to Mr Carson.

I do not really understand what the member meant by “whatever”, but I am sure that the member, and all members, would agree on the principle of minimising the risk of economic, social and environmental damage to our peatland and grouse areas. Licences will be granted appropriately in season, and will be granted outside the season only if the licensing authority is satisfied that it is absolutely necessary to do so.

Section 11 already restricts when the Scottish ministers—or NatureScot, if the function is delegated to it—can grant a muirburn licence. My amendment 86, alongside amendments 88 and 89, adds further restrictions, which would mean that a muirburn licence could not be granted to burn on non-peatland outwith the muirburn season for the purpose of managing the habitats of moorland game or wildlife or for the purpose of improving the grazing potential of moorland for livestock.

My amendments would also mean that a licence could be granted to burn on non-peatland outwith the season for the purposes of

“conserving, restoring, enhancing or managing the natural environment ... preventing, or reducing the risk of, wildfires ... or ... research”,

but only if it is considered

“that it is necessary to do so.”

That is in line with the principle of minimising the risk of economic, social and environmental damage, and it reflects what is currently set out in the 1946 act. I believe that there are important safeguards to ensure that the bill operates as intended.

I move amendment 86.

I apologise for not picking up the essence of Mr Carson’s first intervention, but Rachael Hamilton helped to clarify it, as did the minister. My understanding is that merlin breed on grouse moors. Sometimes, when muirburn is carried out, that can affect those birds and their ability to survive. I will not rehearse what I said, but I am glad to hear that the minister agrees with my reasons for lodging those amendments.

Amendment 86 moved—[Emma Harper]—and agreed to.

Amendment 87 moved—[Rachael Hamilton].

It is absolutely necessary that we monitor what is happening with our raptor species in rural areas. I know that members from all parties agree that raptor persecution is a despicable act that is carried out by very few people.

The bill seeks to support the fact that most wildlife management is conducted lawfully and contributes so much to the rural economy. I am pleased that the minister supports my amendment, and I encourage other colleagues to do so.

I press amendment 76.

Thank you, Presiding Officer—I know that time is getting on, so I willnae be speaking too long.

The need for a muirburn season is well understood and was set out in the Hill Farming Act 1946. It ensures that muirburn is carried out only when the risk of economic, social and environment damage is at a minimum. For example, the muirburn season ends in spring in order to ensure that protected ground-nesting birds are not disturbed during their breeding season.

There are different permitted reasons for carrying out muirburn—

We know that training new GPs will play an important part in increasing the number of GPs in Scotland. Can the cabinet secretary provide an update on what further steps the Government is taking to support people to train, such as the unique ScotGEM—Scottish graduate entry medicine—programme, which has a focus on recruitment in rural areas?