Seòmar agus comataidhean

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I could not connect. I would have voted no.

I thank Gillian Mackay and the minister for the helpful engagement that we have had between stages 2 and 3. I lodged a similar amendment at stage 2, and the minister and Gillian Mackay offered the opportunity for further discussions on it. Although those discussions have been helpful, it is also helpful to debate the amendment a bit further.

Amendment 4 seeks to carve out an exception in the law for those who are carrying out

“chaplaincy services at protected premises.”

The impact of services that chaplains and leaders from all faiths render cannot be overstated. They often meet people at their lowest point, and the provision of pastoral care can be absolutely key to a patient’s recovery. Those services are a fundamental part of hospital care. For that reason, it is crucial that chaplains should be free to have open, honest and frank discussions that cover a wide range of issues. It should be up to the patient, not the law, to decide the content of those pastoral conversations.

To be clear, the amendment does not seek to give licence to chaplains to pressure people into one decision or another. It does not give them the ability to set up a stall or protest and does not even necessarily give them licence to bring up the topic—that must be led by the individual who wants pastoral care. It does not create a loophole that allows activists to demonstrate or harass. However, it allows chaplains from all faiths to respond to patients who are seeking guidance or a faith perspective on the care options.

Amendment 5, in my name, would include a defence of reasonableness in the bill. It is worded in exactly the same way as a provision in the Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Act 2021, which was passed by Parliament. The bill seeks to tread the fine line between ensuring that women and staff can access the services and upholding the rights of freedom of speech, expression and religion. In all fairness, both the member and the minister have recognised that we are performing a balancing act with the bill. The proposed defence is fair and would assure concerned groups that there will not be overzealous prosecutions that cover activities that are not dangerous or harmful. The assurance would help to protect freedoms and ensure that the law is not overharshly applied.

Given the support for that defence in the hate crime act, I hope that it can also achieve support here. After all, I am sure that no one in the chamber is suggesting that reasonable behaviour should be prosecuted. Amendment 5 would guarantee that, so it should not be an issue.

Absolutely. I think that I made it clear, when I was speaking to my amendments in the other two areas, that it is about a balance between those two sets of rights. Gillian Mackay has worked hard to get that balance right. However, if there happens to be a change by a future Government in that regard, I think that the Parliament should take a bit longer and use all its powers to make sure that everyone in the Parliament is happy with that.

For that reason, I press amendment 6.

I am slightly confused—that is probably to do with me rather than the minister—by the minister’s response. We have the super-affirmative procedure here, and we have used it previously, so it is not a new process that we are suddenly using. Therefore, I do not accept that, if we use the super-affirmative procedure here, it would set a precedent that would mean that we would be forced to use it with every other piece of regulation that comes forward. There has been recognition in the past that, when legislation is controversial or when it needs that scrutiny, the super-affirmative procedure is the appropriate way forward.

To pick up the minister’s words, the super-affirmative procedure gives the Parliament full scrutiny powers. If we do not accept the amendment, that means that we will not have full scrutiny by a committee and by Parliament.

Whether we are talking about one premise or a number of premises, it would be a fundamental change, and I think that that needs proper scrutiny. With respect to the minister and to Gillian Mackay, I do not accept that that will bring massive delay. The timescales for the super-affirmative procedure are laid down, and they are not onerous.

As always, I am very happy to agree with my colleague. As a new member of the DPLR Committee, I look forward to learning more about that. However, I think that there is a genuine issue here. Where we are making a fundamental change to the rights of people with regard to their human rights, the Parliament should use all its powers to make sure that we are happy with it.

It is a fundamental role of the Parliament to ensure that the actions of this Scottish Government and any future Scottish Government receive proper scrutiny. The purpose of amendment 6 is to ensure that any expansion of the definition of “protected premises” comes before the Parliament under a super-affirmative process. That is simply to allow the Parliament and its committees to give appropriate scrutiny to what would be a fairly major change in the legislation.

There are more than 900 GP surgeries in Scotland and more than 1,200 pharmacies, the vast majority of which are on our high streets. If the definition of “protected premises” was expanded, that could, in theory, shut down every one of them, and it would stop demonstrations being held, stalls being set up or even potentially conversations happening outside them.

I understand that, at stage 2, the Government made it clear that it could see a time in the future when it might be necessary to expand the definition of “protected premises” and that any limit on that expansion would be unacceptable. In my view, we, as a Parliament, need to ensure that, when we pass any form of law, it has the appropriate scrutiny. That will not stop it happening or delay it excessively, but it will allow the committee and the Parliament to be reassured that a fundamental change in the law has had proper scrutiny. For that reason, I will move the amendment.

I move amendment 6.

I thank the minister for her helpful words, in the light of which I will not move amendment 4.

Amendment 4 not moved.

After section 6

Amendment 5 not moved.

Section 10—Power to modify meaning of “protected premises”

I absolutely accept the member’s comments. There are a number of reasons for the fall in volunteer numbers—SCVO has done quite a lot of work on that—but we should address the issue now, before the numbers fall any further. There is also a challenge for businesses to allow people time for volunteering, because volunteers are often the engine that keeps Scotland’s third sector moving.

I have one issue to raise with the minister. I hope that she will reflect on the PVG application fee waiver and come back to us. She will be aware that those in the third sector are deeply concerned by the financial implications and what that will do to volunteers. I hope that the Government will look at that afresh and give some reassurance to the organisations involved.

Finally, I thank the hundreds—thousands—of people who volunteer in the Lothians. Tonight, cub groups, scout groups and so many other groups will meet, only because of volunteers who give up their time. We can all unite in thanking people for what they do across our country, and I look forward to more people volunteering in Scotland.

I thank Kevin Stewart and all those who have taken part in the debate. Politics does sometimes work by consensus and tonight has been consensual—at least until I speak.

I have the privilege of convening the cross-party group on volunteering and I would welcome any member who wanted to come and join the group. I have been convener of the CPG for the past couple of years and it has been interesting and inspiring to hear what is happening across Scotland.

Volunteering helps the volunteer as well as the project or community, so there is a benefit for both individuals and organisations. When I was in hospital at the end of last year and beginning of this one, our morning and dinner-time tea and coffee were served by volunteers. What was far more important than the tea, coffee and biscuits was the conversation—for patients who had very few visitors, that was often the only conversation that they had with anyone other than nursing staff.

We have heard many inspiring stories from those who have spoken today, but we face a problem. Last year, for the first time, the number of people volunteering in Scotland fell below 1 million. One of the few positives that came from the pandemic was that individuals volunteered and got involved in their communities. As we have returned to normality, people have been pressed—

I will be happy to after I finish this sentence.

People are pressed by work and family commitments and may not be able to volunteer in the same way, which is something that all of us, from all parties, should reflect on.