Chamber and committees

Finally, I want to ask about the availability of Gaelic-speaking teachers and specialist education staff; we have spoken about early learning professionals, too. What consideration has been given to that? At the moment, there is a challenge with the supply of staff and, obviously, as we look to expand, we do not want that issue to get in the way.

As it is quite a big question, in the interests of time, it would be helpful if you could get back to us in writing, including a response to the point about early learning, because, as you said, the whole through-route is important.

Professor McLeod, you spoke about weaknesses in the plans. I assume that you are talking about island authorities in particular. Can you give an example of what you mean by weakness? We are not embedded in all that, so it is helpful for us to know what is weak and what needs to be stronger.

That question was going to be about whether there were alternatives to the perspective that was set out by Professor Ó Giollagáin, but we have just heard one.

I will ask about Gaelic-learner and Gaelic-medium education. Notwithstanding the previous comments about the symbolic value of language in schools, I think that Gaelic-medium education is important. I would like to hear reflections on its current strengths and weaknesses. We have already spoken about staffing challenges, which might be included among those. I would be happy to hear from Professor McLeod or Professor Ó Giollagáin.

Part of that issue is maybe around wider community use and ability. Not everyone who goes to the Gaelic-medium schools has parents speaking the language at home. Is it about that wider opportunity?

Will the member take an intervention?

Good morning, minister. Everyone, I think, will want to get this legislation in place as swiftly as possible and establish the compensation scheme.

Although Haemophilia Scotland supports the LCM, in its submission to the committee it talks about

“serious concerns over some ... proposed changes which deviate from ... recommendations set out”

in the

“Compensation Framework Study and ... Second Interim Report.”

Will you talk to the Scottish Government’s thinking on those deviations?

That is helpful.

When trying to bring about change for the purposes of campaigning and politics, I recognise that a compelling and often successful route to go down can be to divide into sides and ask, “Are you for us or against us, a hero or a villain, just, unjust, righteous or wicked?” However, as well as positively galvanising people behind what we believe to be the right side of something, that approach can on occasion stifle open, honest conversations and exchanges of views. It can leave folk with no space to change their mind and, at worst, it can hamper scrutiny.

As legislation progresses through our nation’s Parliament, curiosity about how things will work, exploration of unintended consequences and open, honest dialogue and scrutiny are crucial to allow us to do our jobs to the best of our ability. Although we are here to scrutinise safe access zones alone, I feel—as the committee convener, Clare Haughey, and Gillian Mackay did—that it is important to acknowledge that abortion is challenging to talk about; it elicits strong emotions in many of us. The decision to terminate a pregnancy is deeply personal for a woman, and it is only the business of her and whomever she decides to involve.

From the outset, I state that I agree with campaigners, Gillian Mackay and the Scottish Government that women should be able to access healthcare free from harassment, fear or intimidation. I will vote for the bill at stage 1, but I believe that further exploration of some of the issues raised in the stage 1 report is required. The debate gives us the opportunity to do that, as does the Parliament’s amending stages 2 and 3.

The committee heard from a range of people with differing experiences, views and perspectives on the bill, both in public and private session. I am grateful to them all. I acknowledge, in particular, the women with lived experience of the matters that the legislation deals with. Coming into Parliament to share personal testimony with members they had not met before was not straightforward. I admire the strength and generosity of those, both for and opposed to the bill, who did just that. I also thank the clerks and the participation team for the care and attention that they took in organising and supporting those important private sessions.

In our report, the committee recommended that the member in charge of the bill and the Scottish Government consider whether there may be justification for setting minimum and maximum requirements for the extension and reduction of safe access zones. That was to ensure a proportionate approach to the bill’s impact on human rights and to eliminate the potential risk of powers being misused by Scottish ministers. The phrase “misuse by Scottish ministers” might set hares racing and make a good headline, but I will frame it a little differently and ask colleagues on principle, as parliamentarians, how much power they wish to cede from Parliament to the executive.

The committee also recommended that the Scottish ministers undertake a “human rights proportionality assessment” before making decisions about reducing or increasing the sizes of safe access zones, and that such a requirement should be included in the bill, with some members being of the view that, when zones are moved further out of hospital grounds and into shared community space, that requires a further test of proportionality. Perhaps that touches on the points that my colleague Bob Doris made.

On the matter of silent prayer, there was a difference of views on the committee. I remain a bit unsettled about it, and I know that that is not the fashionable thing for a politician to be; I know that I should pick a position and fight ferociously. However, right now, I feel that an exemption for silent prayer may be necessary, because I want to avoid the criminalisation of private thoughts. I am concerned about the worry of those with faith who told us that they feel that they may be targeted for what they think and believe and not for their actions. That said, I also accept concerns from supporters of the bill that exempting specific behaviours may undermine the bill. As I said at the outset, I support the aim of women being protected from harassment, fear and intimidation as they access their right to safe healthcare.

I am very open to having further discussions on those matters. I hope that we can get to a place where both aspects are reconciled. If that is not possible, if and when I vote for the bill at stage 3, I will want to be clear that I have exhausted all avenues of resolution and can explain with clarity my decision to vote for legislation that, although it upholds important rights of women to access healthcare, impinges on views and thoughts that are not the same as my own but are perfectly legitimate to be held.

I acknowledge the work of committee colleagues. Their willingness to work across party lines for the benefit of our young citizens was powerful and has brought about positive changes to legislation that will be meaningful to those whom we are here to serve.

As I did yesterday, I thank the minister for the distance that she travelled on the issues that the committee raised, for listening generously and for providing me and colleagues with amendments to the bill that helped to achieve the changes that we wished to see.

I give sincere thanks to all those who provided the committee with evidence, expertise and experience. In particular, I thank Victim Support Scotland, Scottish Women’s Aid, the ASSIST project and others who highlighted with clarity those whom we would be letting down if we did not think of all children and young people and not just those who are involved in the system because of their harmful behaviour.

One of the voices that has stayed, and will stay, with me is that of the parents who had lost a child to murder and asked for anonymity for their child. I am sorry that the bill was not the place to get change, but I welcome the Scottish Government’s commitment to consult on the matter. I will not forget their voice, and I promise that I will do all that I can to further their ask that the surviving siblings of murdered children can grow up free from the significant impact of continuing traumatising press and social media coverage.

The Children (Care and Justice) (Scotland) Bill will uphold the Promise by improving outcomes for children and young people who are navigating care and justice, ensuring that children who come into contact with care and justice services or come into conflict with the law do so in an age-appropriate system and setting.

The deprivation of liberty of a child should be a last resort and should be used only for the shortest period of time. It is true that children in secure accommodation and custody continue to be some of our most disadvantaged and excluded children in society. Many have already faced multiple adverse experiences, including abuse, neglect, household dysfunction, instability, community violence, deprivation, loss or bereavement, each of which brings associated trauma. Many such children have significant mental health, emotional or wellbeing needs, which are often undiagnosed, and they do not have the access to support that they require. Where appropriate care and support are provided, that can encourage healthy development and improve current and future outcomes and opportunities to live a fulfilling life in the community.

Although secure accommodation and young offenders institutions can both deprive children of liberty, the environments are distinctly different. Safe and trusting relationships are the cornerstone of promoting children’s healthy development, but those are extremely difficult, if not impossible, to develop in a custodial environment such as a young offenders institution.

Children should not be in prison. The bill ends the imprisonment of children in Scotland. Evidence, as well as common decency, shows us that, when children come into conflict with the law, providing them with the best support to address the causes of their behaviour helps them to reintegrate, to rehabilitate and, importantly, to desist from harmful behaviour. That, in turn, prevents further harm in our communities.

I think that it is fair to say that the balance of the bill on the rights of all children has been greatly improved through the committee process. Significant improvements have been made to the information-sharing provisions for victims, and provisions have been included on the provision of support for victims in the children’s hearings system, on the establishment of a single point of contact service and on reporting duties, which will ensure that there is accountability and an opportunity for scrutiny. The bill represents significant progress in realising children’s rights, and I will be proud to vote for it tonight.