Chamber and committees

Given that amendment 52 was disagreed to, I will not move amendment 53.

Amendment 53 not moved.

Amendments 20, 54, 55 and 21 not moved.

Section 5 agreed to.

After section 5

Amendments 56 and 57 not moved.

Section 6—Exceptions to offences

Good morning to the committee, the minister and Gillian Mackay.

We have had quite a bit of conversation about signage and I was grateful for the opportunity to meet the minister and Gillian Mackay to talk about that issue. The intent of amendment 51 is to ensure that safe access zones for protected premises are clearly marked and to summarise the restrictions that will apply by virtue of the act within the safe access zones. I understand that the reasons for not including signage in the initial draft of the bill were about protecting women and not drawing close attention to where buffer zones are. However, I still have some concerns about the understanding of where a buffer zone will begin within the 200-mile radius—sorry, I mean 200 metres. Signage would enable clear distinctions of buffer zones, which would allow people to understand where a zone will begin and will not begin. I stress again that it is 200 metres and not 200 miles.

I understand that health boards may install signage in their areas if they wish. However, with amendment 51, I want to probe the matter further to allow a more open debate. I understand that the committee did a lot of work on the issue, but I would like to get more understanding from the minister of whether we could look at it further.

I move amendment 51.

I am grateful, convener, for allowing me the time to come back in.

I want to reflect on amendment 56 in the name of my colleague Rachael Hamilton and amendment 57 in my name. They are important amendments on deterrence, prevention and adding an additional layer of protection for vulnerable women seeking to access those healthcare services.

On the slight differences between the two amendments, it is good that they are different, as they bring in not only the element of filming but that of recording. The reason for lodging those amendments is that, with the consistent evolution of social media and the different ways in which they could find themselves being harassed by certain groups in the future, women could end up finding images online of themselves accessing those services, because groups are no longer able to stand outwith the healthcare clinics.

Certainly, my reason for lodging amendment 57 was to provide that additional layer of protection. If the opportunity is open, I would be grateful to work with anyone who is seeking to add any additional layers of protection for vulnerable women. I would be grateful for the minister’s comments on that, as I believe that Rachael Hamilton’s amendment and my amendment would bring an important additional element to the bill.

I have listened carefully to all the points that have been raised. I am sure that my colleague Tess White and I will be happy to work with Gillian Mackay and the minister on that really important issue. I take into consideration that we do not want women to feel harassed and we do not want to create future gathering points for protest groups outside premises. However, ahead of stage 3, we need to tease out more of the legality issues that Dr Sandesh Gulhane raised. I welcome that opportunity, so I will not press amendment 51.

Amendment 51, by agreement, withdrawn.

Section 4—Offence of influencing, preventing access or causing harassment etc in safe access zone

Minister, you used the word “likely”. There is a risk, then, as there would be some exceptions; in other words, some things might not fall into what would be deemed as an offence under the section in question. Have you carried out any further work on the parameters for breaching or getting away with the offence?

I join colleagues on all sides of the chamber in celebrating Europe day in 2024. In a turbulent world, it is vital that we continue to express the close bonds of friendship with our many friends and allies across Europe.

That brings me to the motion. Today’s debate on Europe is an opportunity to talk about the many virtues of a shared European heritage and culture. It is a chance to celebrate the long-established historical ties between the United Kingdom and Europe. For me, it is an opportunity to reflect on the sacrifices of the brave men and women who courageously answered the call to secure the liberation of Europe from the tyrannical grip of Nazism. Their sacrifices, and those of many more, ensured that we have a Europe in the first place.

It is disappointing, therefore, that the motion makes no mention of the 79th anniversary of victory in Europe day—a day of national and international celebration that has echoed across the world every year since the hard-fought allied victory in Europe was secured on 8 May 1945.

I am grateful to the member for doing so, because it is such a vitally important date in European history. After all, without an allied victory in world war two, spearheaded by Britain and her allies, the formation of the Council of Europe would never have been possible in the first place.

The Scottish National Party might be unaware that it was our greatest ever Briton, Winston Churchill, who first suggested the formation of the Council of Europe back in 1943. The Council of Europe finally became a post-war reality when it was signed into existence in London on 5 May 1949.

The founding Statute of the Council of Europe set out the guiding principles for its work on rebuilding a Europe that had been shattered by war. As the driving force behind its formation, it is unsurprising that we in Britain share with it the values that we hold most dear here: those of democracy, human rights and the rule of law. Article 1a of the statutes states:

“The aim of the Council of Europe is to achieve a greater unity between its members for the purpose of safeguarding and realising the ideals and principles which are their common heritage and facilitating their economic and social progress.”

The motion that is before us could have recognised other significant European achievements such as the Treaty of Rome and the Single European Act, to mention two more. Unfortunately, we have so far heard only some waffle from the SNP, whose members see the debate as an opportunity to attack Britain and the democratic will of the people of the United Kingdom to leave the European Union.

The SNP loves to conflate the European Union with Europe, as if they are somehow interchangeable. However, as with its flip-flopping on oil and gas, the SNP has a track record of flip-flopping on the EU. In the 1960s and the 1970s, the SNP actively campaigned to take us out of Europe. In 2014, it ran a campaign of separation that would have taken Scotland out of the EU. Thankfully, the vast majority of people in Scotland rejected the SNP’s idea of separation. SNP members talk of Scotland being pulled out of Europe against her will, conveniently forgetting that it was the United Kingdom that had membership of the EU. The SNP also conveniently ignores the fact that a third of its own membership voted to leave the EU back in 2016.

Fast forward to today’s debate, whereby we have the SNP falling over itself to shout about the benefits of being in a union—well, square that circle if you can. It seems that European unionism is good and UK unionism is bad. You could not make it up.

The crux of the matter is that the SNP wants separation at any cost. It intends to rip Scotland out of the world’s most successful and strongest union—to achieve its goals against the wishes of most people in this country. If the SNP had ever got its way, we would have found ourselves outside both the UK and the EU.

I will conclude, because I am out of time. At the founding of the Council of Europe in 1949, Winston Churchill said:

“Our hopes and our work point to an era of peace, prosperity and abundance.”

In a volatile world in which, once more, conflict rages out of control, it is comforting to know that the United Kingdom leads the way in Europe, in ensuring that the long-term stability in the region will once again ensure that peace, prosperity and abundance return to all in Europe. That is a cause for celebration.

To ask the Scottish Government what its response is to reports that Creative Scotland was aware that the project, Rein, which received £76,196 of funding from the organisation, had scenes that were of a sexually explicit nature before awarding it funding.

Creative Scotland knew back in March 2023 from Rein’s application that its project would include

“a sex scene with genital contact”

involving three members of its cast. In his letter of 16 April to the Constitution, Europe, External Affairs and Culture Committee, the chief executive, Iain Munro, stated:

“as became clear in March 2024 when the project team developed new content for their website and publicised that as part of a call-out for participants, one new and significant difference emerged which took the project into unacceptable territory. That was the intention to include real sex, as opposed to performance depicting simulated sex, in the work.”

A freedom of information response that was released yesterday shows that that was completely untrue and that Rein was clear in its application in 2023 about what its theatre performance would contain. Can the culture secretary confirm unequivocally that he knew only yesterday that Creative Scotland lied to Parliament?

I am still concerned about the nature of the way in which the details have emerged. However, the truth has now been exposed, and tens of thousands of pounds of taxpayers’ money has potentially been lost. Given that the chief executive, Iain Munro, appears to have deliberately misled Parliament, MSPs and, of course, the boss of the Scottish National Party quango, does the cabinet secretary agree that his position is now untenable? If he agrees with me, why has he not sacked him already?