Seòmar agus comataidhean

I will speak briefly to the three amendments. In relation to amendment 3, I appreciate Meghan Gallacher’s contribution on filming, recording and sketching. We, in Scottish Labour, are sympathetic to the issue. Harrowing scenes outside premises have been broadcast over the past few years, and it is now so easy to do that on social media platforms. We understand how harrowing that is for patients and staff. However, it is helpful that the member will not press the amendment. After discussion with Gillian Mackay and the Government, we believe that specifying behaviours in the bill could cause problems, so I thank the member for her reasonableness.

On amendment 4, I appreciate Jeremy Balfour’s contribution at stage 2 and now at stage 3, which has given us additional time to discuss the important issue of the right of pastoral and chaplaincy services to conduct legitimate business. Providing that service is absolutely right, and chaplains must have confidence to do so.

In committee, we discussed the matter at length and considered it again and again. I also discussed the matter that we are speaking about with Gillian Mackay this week. In my view, and considering the bill as it is now drafted, I am confident that we would not criminalise anybody who was legitimately carrying out business or providing a service.

On amendment 5, I again thank Jeremy Balfour for his considered contribution. He is absolutely right that the balance of human rights is key to the legislation, and it is correct that we, as legislators, should consider that at every stage of the bill. Scottish Labour has a long history of supporting freedom of expression, and we understand that the bill asks us to balance that human right.

In addition, as I have said, we do not wish to have any single behaviours listed in the bill, and there was some discussion about that in relation to amendment 5. On balance, we believe that the legislation is written tightly and that prosecutors would assess whether behaviour constituted a breach, so we would not support amendment 5.

I thank everyone who has worked together to get the legislation to stage 3. As previous speakers have mentioned, the process has been respectful, for which I am really thankful. I thank the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee and members right across the chamber who have worked so closely together. It is also really important that I also thank all the people who gave evidence to the committee at stage 2.

I thank Gillian Mackay for working so closely with campaigners in order to bring to our Parliament something that we could move forward as legislation. As we have all said, Gillian Mackay has worked closely across party lines, which I hope will allow us to achieve the passing of the bill.

I thank Clare Haughey, who is the convener of the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee, for the stage 2 debate, which I believe was one of the best that I have been involved in during my time on the committee, as members showed a real willingness to express views and to work together to achieve an outcome that would allow the legislation to work in the interests of women who are seeking healthcare. It was clear that everyone took the matter very seriously.

Personally, I have been supportive of the introduction of safe access zones to protect women who are accessing abortion services. It has long been the view of my party that Scotland should pass the bill to ensure safe access to healthcare for women. It is right that we take all necessary steps to protect women who are accessing abortion services. I believe that the introduction of safe access zones will achieve that.

The truth is that access to abortion clinics is access to healthcare. If the bill is passed today, it will allow us to talk about that openly and to ensure that women who are facing intimidation do not have to do so. We can all understand that visiting a healthcare setting can be worrying and stressful for a variety of reasons, but we heard evidence during the committee stages that women who are accessing sexual health services—specifically, abortion services—can go through an extremely challenging and emotionally traumatic time. Women need to have safe access to the services and the advice that they require: I believe that the legislation will work to achieve that.

It is fair to say that the evidence that was given to the committee was honest and of good quality. I found it to be extremely helpful to hear people’s views, whether they were for or against safe access zones. That is an important point in relation to the feeling that has been mentioned in the stage 3 debate that it could be difficult to discuss such things. Professional guidance and the lived experience of people who have accessed services and of people who have been outside clinics gave me much to think about and will add to our work on getting the balance of the legislation correct.

There is so much to cover around the legislation in the short time that I have, but I want to mention that Scottish Labour supports the views on proportionality and legitimate aims. It has long been Scottish Labour’s view that any restriction of human rights that a bill introduces must be kept to an absolute minimum, and we are content that the bill achieves that—I mentioned that point in the stage 1 debate, but it is worth noting again.

In the very short time that I have left, I want to say that the stage 3 debate was helpful and that we are particularly keen to pick up on post-legislative scrutiny of the bill. I agree that robust post-legislative scrutiny will be important to understand how the legislation is working for the women who require access.

I want to speak to this group of amendments, given the importance of having a review. I thank members for all their amendments on the matter. We considered them all, because reviewing the act and the zones will be important to the legislation’s success. If we can carry out a review within reasonable timeframes and with reasonable collection of data, that will ensure the legislation’s on-going effectiveness.

We support amendment 10, as we believe it to be reasonable and manageable. We also support amendment 11, which changes the timing of the review from five to three years. It is a reasonable adjustment and recognises members’ contribution to reviewing this important piece of legislation.

Does what you are talking about require a culture change, or does it require training or legislative change? What do we need to do to make that happen?

I do not disagree with that at all. What I am asking is how we make that happen. We talk about it a lot, but how do we make it happen for people?

I am interested in hearing about internal processes; you have already touched on some of that and given some good examples of where you have started to try to work together, with an understanding that that will take some time.

We have heard some evidence from users and other professionals in the field indicating that that is not happening across the board—work is slow, although it is picking up pace. How will it be ensured that eligibility criteria for self-directed care are higher up the agenda for teams working on the ground, and that action is actually being taken?

The latest data from Public Health Scotland shows a shocking 21 per cent gap in the uptake of bowel cancer screening between the most-deprived areas and the least-deprived areas. Does the minister accept that health inequalities are a blight on Scotland and does she also accept that this Scottish National Party Government is not doing enough to close that divisive health inequality gap?

That is the reason why I fight every day—while there are children in poverty, we should all accept that we must do more, so I do not understand why SNP members suggest that we should not be doing more.

The Government must listen to what experts are telling us. Last week, the Poverty and Inequality Commission published a damning report that laid bare the SNP’s progress on tackling child poverty. Progress has been slow and the Government is not predicted to meet its child poverty targets. I welcomed the fact that the Deputy First Minister accepts the report and says that she will take those recommendations seriously and use them as the basis for how we proceed to tackle the issue.

Today, families bring up their children in a Scotland where the richest continue to own the wealth while those from our most deprived areas work on low wages to create it. We must do something about that. In a modern, inclusive and progressive Scotland, that is what we need to do. I believe that we can do it and that change can come. I say to the Parliament again—in saying this, I look to the SNP benches—that we have to think about what we can do, what the Parliament can do and what the Government can do. We should lead with the message that it is only when every child does well that we will all do well. That would be a good message to put out in Scotland.

I have a particular ask, which I believe that the Government could achieve, on the issue of free school meals eligibility. I have raised the issue in the chamber on a number of occasions. We are waiting for the Government to meet its commitment to roll out free school meals, and we have heard about the challenge that it seems to be having in doing that. I have been working with charities such as Aberlour, which has talked about how we can quickly help families who are struggling. It believes that expanding free school meal eligibility is one tangible action that could make a real difference to those who are living in poverty. That is a change that could be made relatively easily.

It is my view, as it has been the view of everyone who has spoken in the debate, that the overarching priority of the Scottish Parliament should be to tackle, reduce and eradicate child poverty. Child poverty is a huge challenge that our country faces. It limits the opportunities of children in every town, and it deepens the inequalities that already exist in our society from the second that a child is born. It should shame us all that child poverty remains as prevalent as it is in our country today.

Week in, week out in the chamber, we discuss the modern, inclusive and progressive Scotland that we think exists, but the shocking reality is that, according to the most recent estimates, child poverty levels increased in 2022-23, with 260,000 Scottish children now living in poverty. That is nothing short of a national disgrace, and we must redouble our efforts to address it.

Such figures represent more than just a number; they represent the dark and difficult reality for so many children and their families across Scotland. The situation is unjust and unacceptable, and we in this Parliament must do all that we can to fix it.

I will make this statement because I believe that it is core to the way in which people are treated in this country. I have made it clear previously, and I make it clear once again, that I deplore the Tory Government’s attack on working-class people. In my view, the Tories are the friends of the rich and show no interest in redistributing wealth to those most in need. I accept that political decisions that are made in Westminster affect what happens in Scotland, but, as I often say in this Parliament, we must be honest about what we can do and what our responsibilities are in Scotland.

John Swinney, Humza Yousaf and Nicola Sturgeon all promised—quite rightly—to eradicate child poverty, but those promises to young people and their families have been broken. We have presided over virtually static child poverty rates since 2014, and we all need to acknowledge that.

I was going to go on to say a similar thing.

I encourage the Cabinet Secretary for Social Justice to respond on that issue in her closing remarks. We have brought the issue to the chamber a number of times, and I have written to the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills on it. That is a real change that could be made now. I ask the Cabinet Secretary for Social Justice to consider working across portfolios to get the measure in place as quickly as possible.

I do not have much time left, but I want to say that I hope that members will support the sentiment of Labour’s amendment around working people and making sure that work pays. Labour has a clear plan for delivering a new deal for workers, which would make a big difference in helping people to come out of poverty.

My final words on the matter are that, to do something, we need to have the political will. I ask the Government to have that political will and to look at what more we can do. I thank the Government for agreeing to work across parties to get this right. No child should live in poverty.