Chamber and committees

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.

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.

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 still do not believe that that answers the question. Does the cabinet secretary have faith in Creative Scotland? Does he have faith in the chief executive, Iain Munro—yes or no?

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?

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 due to meet with the cabinet secretary shortly, but I want to bring his attention to the closure of Motherwell concert hall in my region, because it is a well-loved facility that has entertained many in Lanarkshire for decades. I want to emphasise the detrimental impact on local economies and the restriction of the growth of talent who rely on smaller venues to get their big break. How will the cabinet secretary work with local councils to save these much-loved music venues, which are of substantial cultural importance and represent a substantial cultural heritage, given the announcement of investment in the sector?