Chamber and committees

I am thinking about the ability to extend or reduce a zone or to add a new site. I used the example of a new hospital—a replacement service in another area. One concern was about the Scottish ministers making that decision to extend or reduce the area without going through further parliamentary scrutiny. Sandesh Gulhane spoke about further scrutiny through statutory instruments or making sure that wider consultation was under way. Might we need to consider that as we move forward—or would it potentially incur delays in establishing new, enhanced or reduced zones?

Good morning. I am interested in the decision to set the safe access zone at 200m, as is proposed in the bill. How did you come to make that choice, given that legislation elsewhere sets out other sizes—for example, 50m or 150m? What evidence led to the proposal to establish 200m zones in Scotland?

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?

What about signage for the zones? When I spoke to NHS Dumfries and Galloway, I was told that signage would shine a beacon of light on the services that are being provided, which would draw attention to them and make the healthcare that is being provided more “in your face”. What are your thoughts on signage around zones?

So, the proposal would be to have a map, or the creation of an area, attached to an NHS facility’s website, without necessarily putting up signage at 200m—or an extra distance—around a facility?

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?

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—

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.