Chamber and committees

Good morning, minister. A stakeholder in the social care sector shared with me that SDS has not

“been the opportunity so far that has fulfilled its promise.”

You have alluded to that this morning. She said that

“social care is rationed heavily”,

that

“a new case can only be funded when one person no longer needs it”,

and that the

“number needing support is growing.”

I recognise that you have said that you acknowledge that, but do you accept that, in principle, the resources are not in place? Why not put that right now and get accurate data before overlaying additional complexity?

I will be very quick.

I am not suggesting more money. I am actually suggesting focusing on getting the data and taking action, rather than adding additional complexity with a new system.

My second question is about option 1, which you referred to, and how certain people think that there is only option 1. In one part of Scotland, it is being used as the only option and options 2, 3 and 4 are not being offered, and there is insufficient resource locally to create a support package. In another part of Scotland, a social worker came up with a package that was in line with the option 1 guidelines and was acceptable to the individual, but it had to be withdrawn because it could not be funded.

This is a direct quote from a parent with a child with autism. She said:

“SDS is the SNP’s cornerstone strategy for delivering social care but it is not being applied as directed and parents are left hanging.”

What resources will the Scottish Government give to local authorities to make sure that they can successfully implement all four of the SDS options?

Okay, so work needs to be done there for SDS to be successful—as you sad, they are the key cogs in the wheel.

My second question is about geography. Resources are under pressure, in relation to both people and finances, but there is a huge disparity between rural and urban areas. I am particularly bearing in mind two of the support options. It is very difficult to get carers out to rural areas. There is a disparity in mileage rates, sometimes people need to source their own carers and the rates that the councils offer are more centred on the cities. It is a difficult challenge, but for SDS to work, the challenge needs to be gripped. Do panel members have any comments on that?

Thank you, convener. In relation to whether the 2013 act is sufficient and appropriate to achieve independent living, as Feeley outlined, I would like to ask two questions. The first one is about resourcing. Des McCart made a point earlier in relation to social workers being

“key cogs in the wheels”.

However, at a previous session, the committee heard that there is a high staff turnover for social workers and that morale is low, so if they are the key cogs in the wheels, how are we going to improve self-directed support?

Yes, thank you.

To ask the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body whether it will review the process for admitting visitors to the public gallery in the chamber. (S6O-03585)

Members’ business debates are a brilliant opportunity for MSPs to raise issues that matter to their constituents. However, during my debate last month, constituents from Angus and Aberdeenshire were unable to hear my opening remarks because they were still filing in, which was disappointing for them because they had travelled so far.

I have attended other members’ business debates at which visitors were seated at the back of the gallery, as is the case today, with plenty of seats at the front remaining unused, which we can also see today. I welcome the points about experience and safety, but we can clearly see that the situation is not acceptable. Will the corporate body consider reviewing processes in the people’s Parliament to ensure that opening speeches do not begin until all visitors are seated, and that better use is made of the seating arrangements?

I will be brief. I thank the minister for her remarks on the recording and reporting of offences, and I welcome the fact that they are on the official record. Nonetheless, I intend to press amendment 9.

I also welcome the cross-party working on amendment 10. Given the issues involved and the rights affected, it is important that any review of the act is robust. I therefore urge members to support that amendment.

This is a complex topic with varied and sometimes polarising points of view. As we have heard today, however, the bill is not about abortion; it is about women being able to access the healthcare that they need at what can be a vulnerable, isolating and difficult time. Like other members of the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee, I thank the convener, clerks, witnesses and all those who submitted evidence during the passage of the bill. The Parliament has handled the issue with both sensitivity and security in mind, and I thank everyone who has been involved in this undertaking.

The Abortion Services (Safe Access Zones) (Scotland) Bill has achieved cross-party consensus, and I am pleased to support it at stage 3 today. As the Law Society of Scotland emphasises, any restriction on articles 8, 9, 10 or 11 of the European convention on human rights is a “careful balancing exercise”. I am a staunch defender of free speech, but I recognise that that must not come at the expense of women’s health or our right to access medical services free of prejudice. Women have a right to access reproductive healthcare unimpeded by protests. They also have a right to privacy, especially when it comes to their own health.

I was struck by a story that was shared by Back Off Scotland at the start of the bill’s parliamentary passage, which was about a pregnant mum. She received the devastating diagnosis at her 20-week scan that her baby had something seriously wrong with her heart. She said:

“I had to make the decision whether to finish the pregnancy and allow her to die, or to terminate.”

She added that the protesters made her

“feel like a monster for making the decision”

to have an abortion, and that she suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder—PTSD. She continued:

“Terminations are a much-needed service for many reasons, and no-one should be made to feel like a monster for using the service.”

Her experience is a sobering reminder of why we are here today. We know that at least 12 hospitals and clinics have been targeted across Scotland since 2017, including Aberdeen maternity hospital in my region. It is clear that the existing legislative framework has not prevented such protests. Scotland is the only part of the UK not to have safe access zone legislation in place, with Westminster legislating last year and Stormont back in 2021.

Against that background, it is right that we legislate on the issue and it was right, too, that we strengthened the bill as much as possible so that it will protect women not just when it is enacted but in the years to come. That is why, with my amendments at stages 2 and 3, I focused on post-legislative scrutiny, and I am pleased that the Scottish Government was receptive to those changes. The test will now be in how the bill’s provisions are enforced and in the impact that they will have on women accessing abortion services and on the staff who support them. We will be watching.