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.

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.

Part of this is about allowing for the flexibility and ability to incorporate whatever science, technology or research delivers, in order to support the whole process. It is about allowing flexibility to be built in, in relation to a further support plan down the line.

I am pleased to speak to amendment 81. The amendment would increase the maximum period for which a grouse licence may be granted from one year to five years. This issue has been brought up by many land managers and estate owners, including those in Dumfries and Galloway and in the Scottish Borders, and I understand that it featured heavily in much of the evidence that the committee heard and considered at stage 1.

As is the case with many other businesses, grouse moor management is a long-term undertaking, and it requires careful planning and up-front capital investment. Land managers whom my office has engaged with as recently as yesterday have expressed concerns that an annual licence will not provide the certainty that is needed to undertake long-term financial and business planning for the management of grouse moors.

NatureScot also reassured the committee during its stage 1 evidence taking that it would prefer more flexibility on the licence duration and that

“A licence duration of between three and five years sounds about right and sits more comfortably with other civil licensing schemes that we know work well.”—[Official Report, Rural Affairs and Islands Committee, 21 June 2023; c 30.]

I also know that, when giving evidence at stage 1 as the then minister for the bill, Gillian Martin indicated that she was willing to consider a change to the duration of the licence. Some have called for a shift to 10-year licences, and we have just heard that Rachael Hamilton’s amendment 63 proposes to make that change. That feels too long with regard to being able to assess any changes in circumstances, as has been indicated by RSPB Scotland.

It is right that there is a periodic review of licence holders—whatever the licence may be—and renewal allows that to happen. A maximum licence duration of five years seems to strike the right balance. Any longer than that could undermine the effectiveness of the licensing scheme. A five-year licence would give land managers and estates the certainty that they need to manage and invest in their businesses, while ensuring that the licensing authority retains enough oversight to ensure that everyone is adhering to statutory requirements and best practice.

I am pleased that the minister gave me the time to deal with amendment 83, as it was originally his amendment, and I encourage members to vote for it.

Amendment 83 agreed to.

Amendments 138 and 139 not moved.

Amendment 19 moved—[Edward Mountain].

I am a member of the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee. The National Care Service (Scotland) Bill, which that committee is considering, is a framework bill, as well. We had a stushie in the process because of what is not in that bill but will be developed in co-design.

The technology is developing really quickly. Scotland’s Rural College, which does research and development and works on the science, welcomes the framework bill because it will allow adaptations for whatever we do in the future, such as emissions reduction in ruminants and things like that.

I am interested in engagement in the co-design process, given that there are a lot of parallels between the National Care Service (Scotland) Bill and the bill that we are discussing, as they are both framework bills. I am interested to hear how the co-design process is being done with land users, farmers and crofters in order to give people confidence and give the process stability.

Will the member take an intervention?

I am pleased to move amendment 83, which was lodged by Jim Fairlie, who was a member of the committee a couple of weeks ago. The bill provides that Scottish ministers must prepare a code of practice relating to managing land to which a section 16AA grouse licence relates. The code of practice was a recommendation of the Werritty review and it is intended that it will cover issues that were identified by that review, such as the use of medicated grit. The proposed new section 16AC(2) of the 1981 act sets out examples of the type of guidance that may be included in the code of practice. At stage 1, a number of parties were concerned that there were no specific references that allowed medicated grit to be provided, raising concern that the silence might suggest that its use was no longer legitimate.

Amendment 83 adds medicated grit to a non-exhaustive list of topics for which guidance may be provided, and I hope that it will provide clarity and certainty on the matter. It has been specifically included in an amendment to make it transparent that the code would cover the use of medicated grit. If a licence specifies that the medicated grit sections of the code must be complied with, failure to do so would be an offence under the bill, which would mean that the licence could be revoked or suspended on those grounds. That is an important safeguard to ensure that the use of medicated grit is appropriate and that it meets good practice standards as set out in the code.

I move amendment 83 and encourage committee members to vote for it.

I am absolutely aware, from my research since coming back to the committee, that we used to use fenbendazole but we now use flubendazole. There are issues and concerns around when and how flubendazole is used, and there are issues around potential resistance. I have learned that the grit is used in a way that supports the welfare of the red grouse to deal with the parasitic strongyle threadworm. I am interested in that, as my background is as a nurse, working in healthcare. I am therefore used to dealing with issues around managing medication. I do not think it is right that Edward Mountain suggests that, because I do not work in a rural area, I might not have knowledge about medicated grit, for instance. We all know how to research.

I am interested in considering how we manage best practice, support the best welfare and monitor how medicated grit is used. I think that it is worth pursuing amendment 83. I spoke to the minister to gather some background information, and I was reassured that the amendment that was lodged by Jim Fairlie is a reasonable one.

Given that, based on what Mr Fairlie has said, the Government would like time to ensure that the amendments are workable and doable within the current resources, I am happy not to press or move them. I am keen for the minister to work with NatureScot and others, to have the appropriate discussions and then potentially to bring back redrafted versions at stage 3.