Chamber and committees

I was not intending to say anything in this debate, but members have made very thought-provoking contributions. I have to say that I am a stickler when it comes to this issue and will talk about improving the lives of children and young people at every given opportunity.

This week, I received in my inbox a fascinating manifesto pledge by the campaign group 2020 Together entitled “It’s all about the children”. It had a launch last week; unfortunately, I was unable to attend, due to other commitments, but I think that it hits home in showing the importance of the early years to a child’s development.

Back in 2016, the Scottish Government promised to provide 1,140 hours of free childcare to children from the ages of three to five, which is exactly the age range that we are talking about today as we look at how we advance the learning experience of children and young people from a really early age. I do think that we need to look at what we have right now before we look at what we can do in the future, because we need those structures to be in place if this sort of scheme is to work. Indeed, Fulton MacGregor touched on that in this speech. The early years offering that we have just now will need to be relooked at, should we embark on this huge challenge, but I do think that it is a challenge worth embarking on.

The manifesto that I mentioned contains some really important elements, and I would appreciate it if the minister and I could discuss it, perhaps not today, but at some point in the future. It comes from a group of active campaigners in my region who want to make sure that the experience for children at the early stages of their lives is the best that it possibly can be. Although the early years offering just now has been positive for local authorities, it has certainly not been as positive for the private, voluntary and independent sector. Although the nurseries in that sector provide the same level of care for children, and although their staff have the same qualifications as those in local authority settings, the pay disparity between the two settings is stark. Someone in a private, voluntary and independent nursery will get a living wage of around £12 an hour, while someone in a job in a local authority early years setting will get roughly £16 an hour.

That makes clear the disparity that exists for those trying to give our young people the best possible start in life. We can see how things are already on an unequal footing, even before we begin to look at redeveloping childcare and early years according to the terms of today’s debate on a kindergarten stage and on learning through play. That sort of learning is vital to a child’s development. Indeed, I know that for myself; my toddler, who is going to be two next month, challenges me every single day to learn through play, and I have thoroughly enjoyed that experience with her.

As I have said, in looking at this issue as a whole, we need to look at what we are offering just now, get the structures and pillars in place and sort out the fundamental problems. Once we do that, we will have the right opportunity to look at how we can improve things and create and develop something new for Scotland that gives children the best possible start in life. I therefore challenge the minister to look at what we have just now and fix the problems with the provision of 1,140 hours to ensure that, when we come to look at the kindergarten stage, we are starting from the best possible place. That is what will benefit our children best, and that, after all, is the most important thing that we as parliamentarians can do.

I echo everything that Fulton MacGregor has just said. Does he agree with me that Diane Delaney is an absolute trailblazer when it comes to campaigning and highlighting those issues?

I apologise for getting ahead of myself at the start, Presiding Officer.

I have heard everything that the minister and Gillian Mackay have had to say about signage, and I certainly agree that no one wants to cause any further distress to women who are simply trying to access healthcare. With that in mind, I will not press amendment 2.

Amendment 2, by agreement, withdrawn.

After section 5

I echo the comments made by Gillian Mackay and the minister about the tone of the debate, and I thank everyone who has been involved in the bill at all its stages.

As I have said in the chamber previously, this debate is not about abortion. Members will, rightly, have views on abortion, and all views are valid, but those views are not for today. Today’s debate is about women and their right to access healthcare safely, which is why the Scottish Conservatives will support the bill at stage 3. Women should not feel threatened or intimidated, especially when they are going through one of the most difficult and traumatising times in their lives.

The bill that Gillian Mackay has brought to the chamber puts in place measures should groups congregate outside premises where abortions can take place. We have been in the unfortunate situation in which women have felt unsafe and have even missed healthcare appointments because graphic placards have been placed outside clinics by some groups. People have tried to directly influence women’s decision making, women have been harassed or have felt judged for making a decision that they felt was necessary, and some groups have tried to prevent patients and staff from gaining access to such premises.

It has long been my personal view that no one should deliberately influence a woman when it comes to their right to have an abortion; it is unacceptable for anyone to think that they know better than the person who has made a decision about their body.

However, as has been highlighted through the amendments that we have just debated, all options should be made available for women, and they should not be restricted by legislation should they wish to seek support from various different places. We need buffer zones so that there is a clear marker for women to know what measures are in place to support them.

I hope that the minister and Gillian Mackay recognise the intended sincerity with which I lodged my amendments on signage and recording. I want to ensure that the bill works and that women are protected when accessing clinics, and I know that they do, too.

That does not mean that the bill is perfect. Through discussions with the minister and Gillian Mackay, I know that we will need to review the bill in order to measure whether it has been successful and ensure that the right information is being collated. I was pleased that the Parliament accepted amendments that were lodged by my colleagues Rachael Hamilton and Tess White on that issue.

We also need to consider arguments relating to freedom of speech and expression. Although such arguments were well rehearsed at stage 2, some people argue that silent prayer does not come under intimidation or harassment, and the bill has not resolved that issue. However, I appreciate the approaches that were outlined by the minister and Gillian Mackay regarding police involvement and the engagement exercises that will be undertaken as a result of the bill’s passage today.

One of the amendments that I lodged at stage 2 related to potential legal challenges, and it is my understanding that the bill could be challenged as a result of today’s vote. I am sure that that is not unexpected, but it reaffirms the importance of scrutiny at all times to ensure that the legislation holds up. As a Parliament, we have a duty to create good law.

I hope that the bill has plain sailing and that we are able to ensure that women can access healthcare safely. We owe it to the brave women and healthcare staff who have put themselves forward to give evidence and to share their experiences, as the bill would not have been possible without them and campaigns such as Back Off Scotland. I thank them for challenging MSPs right across the chamber to ensure that access to healthcare is safer for women.

Amendment 3 would make it an offence to photograph, record, store, broadcast or transmit anything of a person “without their express consent” when the person subject to the recording was in a safe access zone

“for the purpose of accessing”

or

“providing ... abortion services at the protected premises.”

I discussed amendment 3 with the minister and Gillian Mackay. I do not intend to press it, but the issue is worthy of further discussion, because the amendment is about protecting women by saying that it is not okay to photograph any woman or member of staff who is entering or leaving protected premises, as highlighted in the bill, and about ensuring that all the stipulations attached to that matter are recorded in the bill.

Having had discussions with the minister and Gillian Mackay, I understand the concerns that they have raised about drawing the issue to the attention of groups that might wish to find alternatives to standing outside healthcare facilities. With that in mind, I do not intend to press amendment 3 when the time comes, but I am grateful for the discussions that I have had with the minister and Gillian Mackay.

I move amendment 3.

I move amendment 2.

Thank you, Presiding Officer. Amendment 2 would introduce a requirement for operators of a protected premises to include signage that outlines the safe access zone and summarises the restrictions of the zone. The amendment would require that the operator displayed the sign on the day that the safe access zone took effect. It would also allow ministers to make regulations about the signage. However, those regulations would be subject to the affirmative procedure.

I am grateful for the conversations that I had with the minister and Gillian Mackay on signage, and I hope that they understand the good intentions behind lodging this amendment at stage 3. It is not my intention to press the amendment, but I wanted to raise the matter in the chamber because signage was not included in the original consultation process and in case any member wished to make further comments.

From my perspective, I am content with the reason that I received from the minister and Gillian Mackay for why they would not support the amendment at stage 3. The reason relates to health boards making their own decisions with regard to whether or not signage would be appropriate outside the particular premises concerned. I am content with the answer that I got from the minister and Gillian Mackay at stage 2, and I do not intend to press the amendment at stage 3.

I welcome the comments that have been made in relation to my amendment 3 and Jeremy Balfour’s amendments 4 and 5. I will start with my amendment. I completely understand where the minister and Gillian Mackay are coming from regarding current protections in the bill. The intention was to strengthen the bill as much as possible to ensure that women do not face unwanted harassment or recording, particularly in the days of social media, as Carol Mochan pointed out.

My colleague Jeremy Balfour’s amendments 4 and 5 are important, because they provide the right checks and balances that we need for bills such as this. Regarding chaplaincy services, it is right that we protect the right to freedom of religion, ensuring that choices are made by individuals and that they have the right care, services and support required in their time of need.

As Jeremy Balfour has highlighted, the defence of reasonableness has been used to strengthen previous legislation, while determining when behaviour is reasonable. There are measures and metrics in terms of what is acceptable and not acceptable when it comes to behaviours. For that reason, I believe that it was right to lodge amendments 4 and 5 in order to have further discussions on that point.

As advised previously, I do not intend to press my amendment 3 to a vote.

Amendment 3, by agreement, withdrawn.

Section 6—Exceptions to offences

Not moved.

Does Jamie Cooke want to come in on that?