Chamber and committees

I am grateful to the minister for the amendments that she has lodged. In particular, I am fully supportive of the increased flexibility that amendment 36, if agreed by the committee, will provide if there is a need to protect additional kinds of premises in the future.

As I have always said, my aim is to protect women and staff, and I do not wish to infringe on other rights any more than is necessary. I am pleased that amendment 36 will allow a targeted approach, if appropriate.

I also support the minister in urging members to vote against amendments 35, 37 and 38. I have been appreciative of Sandesh Gulhane’s consideration throughout the process. As the minister noted, he prompted reflection on the scope of section 10 in the bill as introduced and the lodging of amendment 36. However, I cannot agree that we should pass the bill as if services will remain static and behaviour will never change.

Likewise, I agree with the minister’s comments on amendments 35 and 37. The Parliament will have a prominent role in scrutinising any expansion to the definition of “protected premises”. It therefore seems extremely ill advised to tie our hands by ruling out specific kinds of premises regardless of circumstance.

Others have mentioned reopening and amending primary legislation. As everybody knows, that would take time, during which women would be intimidated or harassed all over again. That is particularly the case given that, as already discussed, amendment 36 also means that individual premises can be specified if that is more appropriate—for example, in cases in which only certain premises provide the services and a blanket approach is not necessary.

I want women and staff in the future to benefit from the protections that we are considering and I hope that the committee will agree.

I will be brief because I support the amendments and am grateful for the improvements that they will make to the bill. I encourage members to vote for the amendments in the group. In particular, I thank Ms Harper, not just for her amendments, which I believe add clarity, but for her support over the years. She has long championed this issue, and I am grateful for her part in this process today.

As the minister noted, there is a significant amount to cover in this group. In the interests of maintaining momentum, I will not repeat what the minister has already said, but I apologise for the length of the comments that I am about to make. I will use my time to cover amendments 24, 21, 22 and 23, and I will touch on the amendments relating to photography in summing up.

Amendment 24 is on silent prayer. I have listened carefully to the arguments for an exemption since the bill was introduced, and I hope that members will believe that I have thought long and hard about them. That is because, as I have said from the outset, I recognise the importance that prayer can play in the lives of people of faith. I have never sought to minimise or undermine that, and I do not believe that the bill does either. On the other hand, having considered the matter, I am convinced that an exemption for silent prayer would undermine the bill and what it seeks to do.

I urge members to vote against the amendment on two grounds: first, it is unnecessary; and secondly, it would fundamentally weaken the protection that the bill seeks to provide to women and staff.

On the first point, as I highlighted during the stage 1 debate, the bill does not prohibit specific behaviours in a safe access zone. Silent prayer is therefore not in and of itself prohibited. In reference to Mr Balfour’s example, he would not be breaking the law in quiet personal reflection. To put it another way, the offences are not about what you are thinking but about what you are doing and the effect that that has on others.

When Police Scotland gave evidence at stage 1, it said that it was not going to police what people are thinking. I wholly support that. However, amendment 24 would require enforcement agencies to try to do exactly that.

I hope that some illustrations will help here. If someone prays silently without outward sign on their way to, or even outside, a hospital or at a bus stop—to use Mr Balfour’s example—for a few minutes, it is very unlikely that anyone would be aware that they are silently praying. If nobody knows that someone is praying and nothing in their conduct is capable of having the effects on women or staff that the bill seeks to prevent, it is unlikely that any offence could be committed.

However, if someone stands silently praying for a long time while deliberately looking at women who are accessing an abortion clinic or, for example, they stand with a sign, as we see currently, they might be committing an offence. That is not because of the prayer; it is because of the sense of judgment. It is about the effects of that conduct in positioning themselves in that location on women and staff who are accessing the clinic. An offence would be committed only when the full facts and circumstances demonstrated that the behaviour was intended to have those effects or was reckless as to whether it did. That is why an exemption is unnecessary.

As I said at the start, an exemption is not only unnecessary; it would be damaging. Setting silent prayer aside, amendment 24 could have the unintended consequence of creating loopholes for other conduct. As I mentioned earlier, someone could simply stand for hours looking at women and staff and monitoring their comings and goings, and the exemption could provide cover. That in itself might be enough to reject amendment 24. Setting that aside, conduct that gives rise to the harmful effects on women and staff that the bill seeks to prevent should not be permitted simply because someone is silently praying at the time.

I understand that there are people who do not think that silent prayer could have any of the effects that are prohibited in the bill. I must remind members that we have heard evidence from women and staff that they feel intimidated and judged when they try to access or provide healthcare services and encounter people who are praying outside. I know that this is obvious, but I must emphasise the point that people are positioning themselves outside those services.

That is probably happening right now when people are accessing medical care to which they are entitled, when they are making personal decisions, and when many of them will already feel vulnerable or afraid. In those circumstances, they are a captive audience—I have referred to that already. They have no way of escaping the presence of those who are praying. They cannot simply go to another venue or come back another day. In contrast, as Ross Greer pointed out during the stage 1 debate, those who oppose abortion can pray anywhere else, including just up the road. We are talking about a narrow restriction that will have the profound impact of affording women and staff dignity, privacy and respect when they need that most.

I remind the committee that we are not the only body to consider the matter, and that others before us have accepted that silent presence can have a negative impact. The Supreme Court noted in its consideration of the Northern Ireland legislation that

“Silent but reproachful observance of persons accessing”

an abortion clinic

“may be as effective, as a means of deterring them”

from getting an abortion

“as more boisterous demonstrations.”

In Livia Tossici-Bolt v Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole Council, which considered a public space protection order creating a safe access zone around an abortion clinic, the court commented:

“The protest activities described in the evidence, including silent prayer ... were not taking place in a shopping centre or park or in a church but outside a clinic to which women were resorting at particularly sensitive and difficult moments in their lives ... those activities ... were, quite reasonably, interpreted as an expression of opposition or disapproval.”

I hope—indeed, I trust—that, in this room, the testimonies of women and staff, including those that were provided in evidence to the committee, will be given the same weight as they were in those cases.

Once we accept that silent prayer can be harmful, we must also accept that exempting it fails to deliver adequate protection. That certainly would not provide the level of protection promised across the rest of the UK. An exemption for silent prayer was proposed as an amendment to the Public Order Act 2023 and was rejected. Likewise, there is no exemption in the legislation in force in Northern Ireland.

There is no way around the reality. If we agree to amendment 24, we will be saying that we are comfortable leaving women and staff in Scotland more vulnerable than their counterparts across the UK. I urge members of the committee to prevent that from happening and, instead, to vote against that amendment and ensure that women and staff in Scotland receive the protection that the bill as introduced promised.

I turn to Mr Balfour’s and Ms Gallacher’s amendments to section 5 of the bill. I am grateful for the challenge that that section has received. It is right that it should be scrutinised carefully, given its potential impact. However, as I set out to the committee during stage 1, the impact of the provision is carefully limited, and it is vital to ensuring that the protection that we are seeking to provide is robust.

Before I turn to the amendments, I will first clarify the purpose and scope of section 5. Contrary to some misunderstandings, the section does not extend a safe access zone indefinitely. Section 5 applies only to areas inside the 200m boundary of the zone; outwith that boundary, people are free to conduct any lawful anti-abortion activity in any location that they choose.

I must also impress upon members that, even within the zone, wholly private actions will not be subject to sanction. Private conversations in homes and in restaurants, religious lessons in schools, and sermons and hymns in a church would be unlikely to meet the conditions for an offence that are set out in section 5. Instead, an offence would likely be committed where either an activity or behaviour is deliberately done in an outward-facing public way for the purpose of influencing, impeding access or alarming someone who is trying to access or provide services, or an activity is done with an utter disregard as to whether it could have those consequences or there is a high level of indifference to the consequences.

Crucially, whether the activity or behaviour constitutes an offence under section 5 will be an operational decision for enforcement agencies. Police Scotland has already explained to the committee how it would approach enforcement.

I hope that that, combined with the targeted scope of the provisions, provides the committee with some reassurance. However, I recognise that the legislation impacts on rights, and I understand why, at first sight, the offences in section 5 may cause members more concern than the offences that are created by section 4.

The provisions have been considered carefully and have been included only because they are necessary. Mr Balfour’s amendment 21, which would remove section 5 entirely, would result in a significant loophole that would allow anti-abortion activities to take place within a safe access zone. That is clear from evidence that the committee has heard. Colin Poolman provided a hypothetical example of an organisation setting up its headquarters within a zone and then using that building to conduct anti-abortion activity that is designed to target women and staff. He commented that that would defeat the purposes of the bill. If section 5 were to be removed from the bill, that hypothetical example could happen.

That may seem to be an unlikely threat—except that the committee also heard from Professor Sharon Cameron, who explained that we already have examples of anti-choice messages being projected on to Chalmers sexual health centre from a property across the street. Without section 5, there would be nothing to protect against such activity being carried out in private places within a zone.

In amendments 52 to 55, Ms Gallacher provides for the possibility of that protection. I thank her for recognising that that is important. However, the effect of her amendments in practice would still be to diminish the bill.

As I have said throughout the process, a key aim of the bill is to prevent harm. However, those amendments would, at the very least, mean that, on day 1, public-facing activity of the kind that I have already described would be possible within safe access zones, until such time as Parliament passed regulations.

I, too, extend my gratitude to the Public Audit Committee and its clerks for their work in the production of the report. I also thank those who participated in the evidence sessions and in the important efforts that were made to prepare the report by the Auditor General for Scotland and the Accounts Commission, which informed much of the committee’s work. The Public Audit Committee report offers key recommendations and conclusions based on comprehensive evidence, and it serves as a reminder that we must do more to support mental health in Scotland.

The report highlights that the Royal College of Psychiatrists has pointed to a consistent increase in the demand for mental health services over the past three years. There has been a specific increase in certain conditions, such as neurodivergent disorders, autism and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. Its evidence points to the fact that, in some cases, referrals have increased by between 700 and 1,000 per cent. It is undeniable that some of that increase results from a better awareness of symptoms and, to a certain extent, from people who seek diagnosis being less stigmatised than before. We know, however, that there is a long way to go around stigma. For those who are waiting, we need to see what else can be done so that there is no further rise in the trend of people seeking a private diagnosis for many of those conditions.

The Poverty Alliance also conducted a snapshot survey that identified that the increasing cost of living is negatively affecting the population’s mental health. Both testimonies serve as a poignant reminder that the findings and recommendations of the committee’s report must be taken seriously, and they point to the scale of the emergency.

However, undeniable progress is being made in places, and several initiatives are worth highlighting. One of those initiatives, which is laid out in the report, is a project in my region called Chris’s House. Chris’s House has established a relationship with the police in Lanarkshire to highlight the services that the initiative offers to support anyone who the police have been called to who is in crisis or approaching crisis. The services and wraparound care that it offers are incredible, and the link between statutory and voluntary services is vital, especially around suicide and those in crisis who need support. As we know, the pathways are difficult to navigate but, for a person in a moment of crisis, that is almost impossible. We therefore need to ensure that the follow-up care beyond such moments is there quickly to support people and that the person in crisis is not required to go looking for that support.

Local work with liaison groups, hospitals and the police has yielded encouraging results.

Absolutely. I will come on to say more about the third sector and the support that it needs, although, looking at the time, that will probably be in my closing speech.

We know that several inequalities remain across Scotland. I want to touch on the issue of data in particular. There are specific and on-going issues with the quality and depth of the data that we record and, therefore, with the data that we can rely on to plan and target services. That situation is not unique to mental health services but, given the acute pressure on those, it is essential that we collect and process the data that we need. The committee’s report refers to

“the lack of data that is held by the Scottish Government, IJBs and others ‘to fully understand demand for mental healthcare’”

and makes the point that

“comprehensive, good-quality data is essential for assessing demand and planning services”.

The report further states:

“information about demand for mental healthcare in Scotland only covers those already accessing or attempting to access some mental health services.”

Therefore, improvement in the collection of quality data is needed. I echo the report’s concern that the lack of such data means that there is no effective means of measuring outcomes or the impact that substantial investment in services is having on the ground.

Once again, I thank the committee, its clerks and those who gave evidence.

In closing, I will emphasise the critical points that have been raised by the committee’s report, and by the various stakeholders that informed it.

Richard Leonard mentioned taking a preventative approach to mental health, with which I whole-heartedly agree. We need to keep people well in order to ensure that we prevent them from ending up in secondary services, and that we give them a better quality of life. The preventative approach has some new branches, but many of the levers—including access to good quality housing, fair work, fair pay, and all the things that we know make lives better—fall outside the portfolios that we are talking about in the debate.

I hope that the cabinet secretary, ministers and others in the Government will ensure that decisions that are made by the Government will seek to enhance and improve mental health care. I recognise Emma Roddick’s comments that not every mental health condition or crisis can be prevented, but we should be doing everything that we can do to ensure that support is there when people need it.

Although several incentives have been brought forward to enhance access to mental health services across Scotland, the report highlights the importance of addressing broader inequalities and the fact that many current incentives lack detail. “HMICS Thematic review of policing mental health in Scotland” shows that police are shouldering the responsibilities that should be shared by a more integrated system.

A whole-system response is necessary for effective mental health services, and the committee’s report also makes it clear that tackling mental health inequalities extends beyond the healthcare system. The chief executive of NHS Scotland shared how health boards can support local communities through employment, procurement and leveraging of the broader policies that are focused on tackling inequalities and poverty.

I also want to touch briefly on the recommendations about GPs and people contacting their GPs. I agree that, for many people, repeating the story about or the symptoms of their mental ill health might deter them from seeking help. I also agree that guidance should be produced, but it should go further than just general practices, so that we are not retraumatising people purely so that they can get an appointment or help. The Royal College of General Practitioners has asked that guidance and any other innovations be allowed time to be implemented. I echo its call for protected learning time for GPs and their teams.

The third sector is delivering a huge number of services and support, but as the committee highlights, funding and certainty about that funding are a barrier to how those services and support are delivered. I was pleased to visit a project on nature prescriptions in Calderwood country park last week with Voluntary Action South Lanarkshire, RSPB Scotland and other partners. The project is fantastic and I hope that other Central Scotland members—and perhaps even the minister and the cabinet secretary—will consider going to see it. It highlighted to me how difficult the current funding regime for third sector organisations is because of the need for them to reinvent the wheel to access funds without knowing when funding decisions will be made.

Some of those whom we spoke to on Skye as part of the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee’s inquiry into remote and rural healthcare could not even get people to reply to emails about when funding could be expected. The mix of support that the third sector provides is phenomenal, so we need to recognise that in the way in which such organisations are treated and supported.

I also believe that, for there to be meaningful reform, the Scottish Government must prioritise mental health funding by meeting its target to increase spending and ensure that at least 10 per cent of front-line NHS spending is dedicated to mental health care.

I remain encouraged by several commitments that have been made by the Scottish Government in its response to several of the shortcomings that are addressed in the report. However, I hope that that translates into concrete action to reinvigorate the mental health care system, which we encourage our constituents to rely on.

Good morning. I am pleased that the committee so far seems to be taking a public health approach to the issues. Mr Dunne, I want to challenge you on a couple of points.

You said that your organisation takes the safety of children very seriously. Having had a quick Google of a few of your members, I must ask, what are you doing to address the fact that some of your members are selling flavours that are clearly targeted at children? One of them in particular is selling a flavour called Super Mix, which everyone round this table who has any young people in their lives will know is also a variant of Haribo—something that children are given as a treat. How does that square with what you said about being serious about products that target children?

Forgive me, but my question was specifically framed around children and young people.

There are two sides to data collection. There is the collection of data on smoking and increasing age and, as you said, Dr Reid, acute harms from that will show up relatively quickly. For vaping, however, we could be looking for different data, because we have not seen the long-term chronic harms of vaping, particularly for young people who start as young as 10, 11 or 12—eight in some cases.

Refillable products are also still out there, and the industry can reinvent itself and come up with another product that is within the right price range for young people. We need to be alive to any of those evolutions.

On the research into vaping, what do we need to do to monitor the impacts of the disposables ban and to note any further trends and changes so that we can move policy and legislation quickly to react to what is going on?

That is great. Thanks.