Chamber and committees

I welcome the opportunity to open the debate on behalf of the Scottish Conservatives.

For the past few weeks, my inbox has been full of letters from constituents who have written to me—it will, of course, be the same for MSP colleagues—about their views on Gillian Mackay’s abortion clinic buffer zone bill. There have, of course, been opposing views, but it is important that everyone has the right to put their argument to their MSPs, who are elected to the Parliament. Such debates are never easy. They are emotive, they can be polarising, and they can easily diverge into debates about social conscience issues. However, I do not see that in this debate about abortion today, and I am pleased that that has been reflected across the chamber so far.

People have strong views on whether they support abortion, and everyone is, of course, entitled to their view. However, in my opinion, the bill is simply about women and creating safe access to healthcare where they do not feel intimidated or harassed. That is a reasonable ask, so I commend Gillian Mackay’s work in bringing forward a bill that aims to protect and support women.

We are not the first Parliament to look at such legislation. The United Kingdom Parliament voted in favour of establishing buffer zones in England and Wales that create perimeters within which certain activities cannot take place.

The Scottish Conservatives will support the general principles of the bill. However, I want to outline some concerns that were identified through the committee stage that still need work, should the bill move on to stage 2.

The harrowing accounts shared by women at the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee are a stark reminder that women fight every day for their rights to be upheld. Therefore, it is incumbent on MSPs to bring forward meaningful legislation that sets out clear aims and objectives, because, regardless of whether the principles are right, if the bill is unworkable it will not provide the protections that it aims to provide.

Gillian Mackay covered a number of the concerns that were raised in committee in her opening speech. One of the first concerns that I was going to raise was about the perimeters surrounding the buildings in question. However, I understand that she has addressed that element. Therefore, I will move on to other concerns, because policing, I think, will be more problematic in relation to the bill.

There is a long-standing argument in this country—one that I whole-heartedly support—that surrounds the rights of freedom of expression and religion. We have already mentioned silent prayers and where it is appropriate to perform them: whether that can be done at home or anywhere. The question that I still have, which will take a lot more exploration in order to come to a conclusion, is whether silent prayers need to happen outside a clinic, or whether people can gather in another location that would allow them to express themselves while giving women the ability to access healthcare. I fundamentally agree that religious freedom is a protected characteristic, but I am not entirely sure how we work around that in the bill that has been introduced.

Then there is the enforcement argument. More consideration is needed around how intimidation is defined to ensure that the bill is clear in its objectives. The largest stumbling block in the bill relates to how the law will be enforced. How will it be enforced equally? Will it be down to individual determination by officers? When will people know that they might be breaking the law? What happens if, as has already been raised, someone is expressing themselves in a home that is included in a marked zone? It will be incredibly difficult for police officers to determine breaches of the proposed bill, but that is something that we can tease out at stage 2 and stage 3, should the bill progress to those stages.

Returning to the argument on silent prayers, should that be an exemption or is it seen as intimidating? It is different from examples that we have heard that involved clear intimidation, where leaflets have been handed out and words have been exchanged. I would view that as intimidation, and it would be traumatic for clinicians, women and everyone who is accessing the clinic for whatever purpose. We need to remember that not everyone who is accessing the clinics is doing so for abortion services.

Good points are raised by Elena Whitham. For me, it is about ensuring that women have safe access to those clinics. That is the fundamental principle of the bill, and that is certainly why I back it, because I believe that that should be the case.

However, as has already been highlighted by others, the human rights element is important. We have to tread carefully in how we move forward to ensure that we have a balance and that it does not tip. If we tip the balance, that can create more animosity and more of a problem than that which the bill is trying to solve. I think that the intention of the bill is right, but we need to think about how we move forward to ensure that all the issues that have been highlighted thus far are teased out.

I know that I am against the clock, so I will conclude on that point. I thank Gillian Mackay for introducing the bill. I look forward to considering the bill at stage 2 and stage 3, and I will certainly vote for the bill at decision time today.

To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on the LGBT Youth Scotland pilot programme to introduce youth clubs in schools. (S6T-01938)

It has been widely reported that Scottish primary schools are appointing children as LGBT champions and asking pupils as young as four whether they are transgender. That is part of a project that was set up by LGBT Youth Scotland and funded by the Scottish Government, using taxpayers’ money. Parents are outraged by some of the materials that have been distributed by schools that have signed up to those youth clubs.

My understanding is that LGBT Youth Scotland’s charitable constitution clearly states that the age range that its activities covers is from 13 to 25 years old, which is of course outwith the age of children in primary schools. Will the cabinet secretary confirm whether LGBT Youth Scotland is in breach of its charitable constitution and whether she has any grip on what is happening in our schools?

I mentioned in my previous question that parents are concerned by the LGBT Youth Scotland scheme. That is not coming from me; it is coming from parents who are speaking to me about those issues and who want them to be voiced in Parliament. Recent reports have outlined that a mother had to change her daughter’s school after it emerged that, within months of joining an LGBT club, her daughter announced in a Christmas card to her family that she had become their trans son and signed off with the preferred name. The problem is that the school did not tell the parents that their daughter had been using a different name in school for months. The school had signed up to the charter scheme that is run by the Scottish National Party funded charity LGBT Youth Scotland.

The Government has slowly been eroding the role of parents in school settings. We need only look at the named persons act to see a prime example of that. Why will the Government not allow kids to be kids? Will the cabinet secretary review the LGBT Youth Scotland programme to ensure that young people are provided with appropriate materials and that parents are not excluded from their child’s learning experience?

I thank the minister for advance sight of her statement.

I spent last week trying to secure a statement from the Government on the Cass review and puberty-suppressing hormones. Every single attempt was voted down or refused. Finally, after confirmation from the health board of a pause in puberty-suppressing hormones for new patients, we have a statement today, but I do not know why the minister bothered, because it will offer no comfort whatsoever to families who have been failed by gender care services in Scotland.

The Scottish Government’s direction of travel on this vitally important issue is as clear as mud. The statement does not confirm whether the Government will implement any of the review’s 32 recommendations, nor does it address the cut to gender care services. The Government claims that it supports young people who are experiencing gender distress, yet members of it have publicly dismissed the findings of an evidence-based expert report.

Today’s exercise in kicking the can down the road and stalling for more time shows that the Government is more concerned about holding together its fragile pact with the dogmatic Greens than about healthcare for vulnerable young people.

When will parents and young people receive a meaningful update? Can the minister assure Parliament that all Government ministers will follow the science rather than ideology?

Kevin Stewart has been chuntering away on this issue from a sedentary position.

There should be an urgent ministerial statement so that the SNP can outline what the announcement means and so that MSPs can ask appropriate questions. However, with the SNP and the Scottish Greens’ approach to scrutiny this week, I doubt that that statement will ever take place.

Therefore, given that the timing of the official announcement this morning did not allow for an urgent question to be submitted before the deadline, I seek to move a motion without notice to suspend rule 13.8.1 of standing orders, so that the 10 am deadline can be removed for today to allow for an urgent question on this topic. Presiding Officer, will you accept my moving a motion that, under rule 17.2.1(a), this Parliament agrees to suspend part of rule 13.8.1 to remove the words “by 10 am” for the purposes of the meeting?

—I seek to move a motion without notice that, under rule 17.2.1(a) of standing orders, the Parliament agrees to suspend part of rule 13.8.1 to remove the words “by 10 am” for the purposes of the meeting.

I think that the groans say everything, Presiding Officer.

On Tuesday, I asked what more MSPs must do in the chamber to raise important issues on behalf of their constituents. The Scottish Government has had every opportunity to make a statement on the Cass review and on whether it will pause the prescription of puberty blockers to children, but it has refused to do so. Arrogance has gotten in the way of protecting some of the most vulnerable children right across Scotland.

The question that I have for the Government is: was it worth it? This morning, MSPs read on social media that the prescription of puberty-suppressing hormones is to be paused in Scotland. However, I find that rather odd, because we have been told repeatedly this week that the minister and the Government needed sufficient time to carefully consider the findings. I wonder whether the Scottish Government developed the skill of speed reading overnight.

If the Government was going to make this announcement anyway, why did the Scottish National Party and the Greens not vote for the statement that I proposed yesterday? That would have allowed the Government to announce in the Parliament that puberty blockers were to be paused, and it would have allowed MSPs to ask questions that the SNP has been hiding from all week.

The Government has tried to silence MSPs in this Parliament, and that is a disgrace. It seems content to leak to the press the news that puberty blockers will be paused before having the decency to update the Parliament, treating the Presiding Officer and the Parliament with utter contempt.

I am beyond fed up with this Government and its lackadaisical approach to gender care. [Interruption.]

Further to my point of order this morning, Presiding Officer, in the light of your previous ruling and the new information that has been made available through the press on the Government’s announcement to pause the prescription of puberty blockers for children and young people—[Interruption.]