Chamber and committees

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Amendment 2, by agreement, withdrawn.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.

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?