Chamber and committees

My next question is on a different subject—the rights of protesters versus those of women who are seeking an abortion. Our briefing papers say that the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women found that several aspects of the law on abortion in Northern Ireland violated women’s rights. Its report made a number of recommendations to

“Protect women from harassment by anti-abortion protesters by investigating complaints and prosecuting and punishing perpetrators.”

I am interested in aspects where the rights of women who are seeking medical care supersede the right of people to protest and the right to free speech.

My question follows on from Sandesh Gulhane’s question about silent prayer. Does the other legislation look at the number of people standing outside a clinic? There is a difference between having one person, who might be a minister or a priest, and having 10 people. Does the legislation cover when it is okay to walk into a place or to stand outside in silence?

You mentioned America, Rachael. I forgot to mention that I was a registered perioperative nurse for 30 years, working in California, England and Scotland. I am thinking about activities in the United States. A lot of violence has been perpetrated over the years, and there has been serious intimidation of people who work in healthcare at the homes of doctors, nurses and staff. My point is that, when we speak about people encountering protest, that includes staff, which you talked about earlier. The overarching aspects of the bill will protect everybody who is going to their work or going to access healthcare. That is what we are aiming for. Is that correct?

The bill deals with protected premises, and there is a definition of protected premises in it. The bill also has commitments for future proofing aspects of it, including the potential to extend its scope in the future to cover general practices, pharmacies and other areas that provide support. I am interested in hearing your thoughts on the definition of protected premises and the ability to modify that in the future.

I have in front of me section 8 of the bill, which deals with reduction. Would you require further consultation on that, as opposed to ministers simply making decisions? Are you saying that 200m should be the shortest distance but that ministers should be required to consult on any alteration of a zone to ensure that any changes are informed by evidence?

Despite a challenging and difficult financial climate that has been created by irresponsible and reckless Conservative fiscal policy, I welcome the fact that the Scottish Government has increased investment in the education and skills budget by £128 million. In respect of college budgets, can the minister share how the starting position for 2024-25 compares with the end position for 2023-24?

I will be moving and speaking to amendments 85, 86 and 87, in the name of Jim Fairlie, who is now the minister.

As the committee’s stage 1 report indicated, the monitoring and reporting requirements must be balanced against any resources that the Scottish Government and its agencies, and wider interest groups, require to carry out that work. In the previous minister’s response to the stage 1 report, that minister stated that the Scottish Government was committed to an open and transparent approach to legislation. Where additional reporting serves a useful purpose, the Scottish Government has said that it is happy to support it, which I welcome.

Amendments 85, 86 and 87 will require monitoring of section 16AA licences and their effect. Part of the reason for the bill is to address raptor persecution on land managed for grouse shooting, and the Scottish Government wants to do so through the section 16AA licensing provisions. The Werritty review identified three raptor species populations as being significantly impacted by criminal activities on some grouse moors: the golden eagle—indeed, there have been criminal investigations into the persecution of those birds in my South Scotland region—the hen harrier and the peregrine falcon.

To assess the bill’s effectiveness in reducing raptor persecution on those raptor species, regular monitoring and surveillance of their populations will be essential, and I acknowledge the Scottish Government’s commitment to doing so. When Gillian Martin was the minister, she stated that some monitoring of raptor populations was already undertaken by the Scottish Raptor Study Group, and my office has been in contact with the group ahead of this consideration.

Based on the evidence that the committee has taken, I strongly believe that the requirement to undertake raptor population assessments is important, and I would welcome the minister’s comments on these important amendments on monitoring.

I move amendment 85.

Good morning, everybody. I have no interests to declare.

Would the member take an intervention?

This relates to my previous question about what should or should not be in the bill. You have already given information about the number of stakeholders who have fed into the process—you said that it was about 1,300—and about people who have volunteered to participate in looking at policy development as we go through. How do we make sure that people who will benefit from any rural funding engage with the process, feed into it and are part of it? It is not just farmers. As I heard at the meeting on Monday, where there were farmers, crofters, land users and community development people, creating thriving communities is part of the discussion.

Going back to the bill, which is what we are talking about, there are stakeholders who think that a clearer direction of travel or key parameters for future support are needed in the bill. What do you think of that? Again, I am going back to engagement with stakeholders, because in looking at the bill and the information in front of me, there could be clearer information about biodiversity, regeneration, sustainable farming and emissions reduction. I would be interested in hearing what you think about that.