The next item of business is stage 3 proceedings on the Abortion Services (Safe Access Zones) (Scotland) Bill. In dealing with the amendments, members should have the bill as amended at stage 2—that is, SP bill 34A—the marshalled list and the groupings of amendments. The division bell will sound and proceedings will be suspended for around five minutes for the first division of stage 3. The period of voting for the first division will be 45 seconds. Thereafter, I will allow a voting period of one minute for the first division after a debate.
Members who wish to speak in the debate on any group of amendments should press their request-to-speak buttons, or enter RTS in the chat function, as soon as possible after I call the group.
Members should now refer to the marshalled list of amendments.
Section 2—Establishment of safe access zones
Group 1 is on a minor amendment. Amendment 1, in the name of the minister, is the only amendment in the group.
I hope that all members will agree that amendment 1 is uncontroversial. The definition of “protected site” was added at stage 2. It is currently:
“the protected premises and its grounds”.
However, not all protected premises will have grounds. Therefore, it is more accurate to define the protected site as “the protected premises and any grounds”. This amendment does not affect the substance of provisions around what defines a protected site, and, although it does not have a policy impact, it is nevertheless an important change to make the bill clearer and more easily understood.
I move amendment 1.
I support amendment 1 and I am grateful for the improvement that it makes. I am keen for legislation to be written in a way that is understood by all, especially legislation that is of so much importance because it offers protection to women and staff. I encourage members to vote for the amendment.
I thank Ms Mackay for her supportive words. As members have heard, this amendment is not contentious, and I therefore ask them to support it and vote for it.
Amendment 1 agreed to.
After section 3
Group 2 relates to signage. Amendment 2, in the name of Meghan Gallacher, is the only amendment in the group.
Thank you, Presiding Officer. Amendment 2 would introduce a requirement for operators of a protected premises to include signage that outlines the safe access zone and summarises the restrictions of the zone. The amendment would require that the operator displayed the sign on the day that the safe access zone took effect. It would also allow ministers to make regulations about the signage. However, those regulations would be subject to the affirmative procedure.
I am grateful for the conversations that I had with the minister and Gillian Mackay on signage, and I hope that they understand the good intentions behind lodging this amendment at stage 3. It is not my intention to press the amendment, but I wanted to raise the matter in the chamber because signage was not included in the original consultation process and in case any member wished to make further comments.
From my perspective, I am content with the reason that I received from the minister and Gillian Mackay for why they would not support the amendment at stage 3. The reason relates to health boards making their own decisions with regard to whether or not signage would be appropriate outside the particular premises concerned. I am content with the answer that I got from the minister and Gillian Mackay at stage 2, and I do not intend to press the amendment at stage 3.
Ms Gallacher, may I ask you to move the amendment formally?
Not moved.
The procedure requires you to move the amendment at this stage, because you have spoken to it. We will get to the next bit when we get there.
I move amendment 2.
I appreciate Meghan Gallacher’s contribution on this matter at stages 2 and 3, because we have had a great deal of discussion of this matter. We in Scottish Labour fully understand the arguments for and against signage, but, on balance, we believe that the health boards have the option to install signage and that might be the best approach. I appreciate that Meghan Gallacher will not press the amendment, but I also appreciate the way that she has approached the issue.
I thank Ms Gallacher for the support that she has given to the bill and the interest that she has taken in this issue. Although we might not agree on the amendment, I have no doubt that it was lodged because of a desire to see the bill implemented successfully, and I found the conversations that we had to be very helpful as we moved forward with the bill. As Ms Gallacher acknowledged, I had concerns about requiring signage, which I set out to the committee at stage 2, but I thank her for lodging the amendment again at stage 3 and allowing me to set out my concerns to the chamber. I will be brief.
Ms Mackay will also speak about the concerns involved, particularly those of service providers, so I will say only that I share those concerns and her hesitancy in overruling service providers when there is some doubt as to the effectiveness of signage.
However, I want to highlight what the bill already requires and how that will be supplemented by the Scottish Government. The bill already includes a considerable package of efforts to ensure that those affected by zones will be made aware of them and their effects. First, as members are aware, the bill requires that the Scottish ministers publish and maintain a list of all safe access zones in Scotland. That list must include not only the name and address of every premises but a map that clearly identifies the zone.
The Scottish Government is committed to a targeted publicity campaign, which will include writing to known anti-abortion groups to make them aware of safe access zones and the criminal sanctions attached to activities that would result in an offence. We continue to work through the full details of the campaign, but it is likely to involve leaflet drops to residents in the zones and notices in public venues such as general practitioner surgeries.
Police Scotland has told us of the approach that it anticipates taking to policing zones. There will be a graduated response, beginning with engagement, explanation and encouragement before any enforcement action is taken.
For those reasons, I remain of the view that signage would do little to raise awareness of zones in a way that could not be achieved by other means. I thank Ms Gallacher for lodging amendment 2, but I am pleased to hear that she does not intend to press it.
I support everything that the minister has said, and I thank Meghan Gallacher for the collegiate way in which she has approached many of the issues. It is not necessary for me to repeat the particular concerns that the minister has raised about amendment 2, but I will set out my more general concerns about there being a specific requirement on signage.
As the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee heard during its evidence sessions, signage is not a straightforward matter. During the extensive engagement with service providers ahead of the bill’s introduction, there were consistent concerns that signs would draw attention to abortion services that might otherwise go unnoticed. As has been discussed a number of times since the bill’s introduction, that could present a particular challenge when women and staff are especially anxious about being identified—for example, in rural areas or in areas with small sites.
Of course, zones must be publicised, and the minister has spoken about the steps that will be taken to do that. However, as I set out at stage 2, signs would be an on-going physical demarcation and would be visible to every passer-by, not just those who might wish to organise or attend planned anti-abortion activity. Therefore, part of the concern is that signs could provoke more ad hoc and sporadic instances of targeting. In the light of some of the genuinely horrific stories from other countries, there is palpable anxiety among some staff about erecting such permanent advertisements, but I accept that those concerns must be weighed up against what is fair and necessary for those who might wish to express opposition to abortion services.
I thank Meghan Gallacher for noting that she will not press amendment 2 and for her engagement throughout the process.
I apologise for getting ahead of myself at the start, Presiding Officer.
I have heard everything that the minister and Gillian Mackay have had to say about signage, and I certainly agree that no one wants to cause any further distress to women who are simply trying to access healthcare. With that in mind, I will not press amendment 2.
Amendment 2, by agreement, withdrawn.
After section 5
Group 3 is entitled “Offence, exemption and defence”. Amendment 3, in the name of Meghan Gallacher, is grouped with amendments 4 and 5.
Amendment 3 would make it an offence to photograph, record, store, broadcast or transmit anything of a person “without their express consent” when the person subject to the recording was in a safe access zone
“for the purpose of accessing”
or
“providing ... abortion services at the protected premises.”
I discussed amendment 3 with the minister and Gillian Mackay. I do not intend to press it, but the issue is worthy of further discussion, because the amendment is about protecting women by saying that it is not okay to photograph any woman or member of staff who is entering or leaving protected premises, as highlighted in the bill, and about ensuring that all the stipulations attached to that matter are recorded in the bill.
Having had discussions with the minister and Gillian Mackay, I understand the concerns that they have raised about drawing the issue to the attention of groups that might wish to find alternatives to standing outside healthcare facilities. With that in mind, I do not intend to press amendment 3 when the time comes, but I am grateful for the discussions that I have had with the minister and Gillian Mackay.
I move amendment 3.
15:00
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.
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 members for meeting me ahead of stage 3 to discuss the concerns that the amendments reflect. Those open conversations testify to the true cross-party working that has characterised the bill as it has progressed through Parliament. I am sure that that will be replicated today.
I turn to Ms Gallacher’s amendment 3. As I explained at stage 2, during development of the bill, it was concluded that the existing offences could capture photography or filming as acts that are intentional or reckless to the effects that are set out in the offence provisions. It is not normal practice to provide for an offence where an existing offence adequately covers it.
Additionally, we must avoid doing anything that would significantly undercut the approach that is taken to offences in the bill. The offences are broadly drafted to avoid criminalising specific behaviours. Instead, they capture any activity that could have the effects that are outlined in sections 4 and 5. The bill does not set out a list of prohibited behaviours, because it is the intended effect that matters. That is essential for future proofing.
It is not difficult to understand why photography or recording could have the prohibited intended effects, because women are accessing medical care and making extremely personal decisions. Consequently, if someone filmed or photographed a person who was accessing or providing services in a safe zone, that would very likely be caught by the existing provisions, provided that it was done recklessly or with the intent of having one of the particular effects.
Amendment 3 also differs from existing offences in significant ways. First, unlike sections 4 and 5, it does not specify that the person who is accused of an offence must be in the zone at the time that the behaviour is carried out, which means that it could extend to behaviour outwith the zone. Secondly, it lacks the intention or recklessness elements, which could make it much broader. It could, for example, apply to a person who simply took a photograph and inadvertently captured someone in a zone attempting to access services. Finally, it requires evidence that action has been taken and directed at particular individuals, whereas sections 4 and 5 require only that the acts are intended to have particular effects or that those effects could occur due to recklessness.
I stress, as I did during stage 2, that I recognise and welcome the intention to increase protection, but I hope that Ms Gallacher accepts—I believe that she does—that the issue was considered during the drafting stage and that the inclusion of the specific offence was deemed unnecessary. I note that she has indicated that she will not press amendment 3, and I thank her for that and very much appreciate the engagement that we had.
On amendment 4, I committed at stage 2 to exploring with Mr Balfour what might be possible or necessary, and I am grateful for the productive discussions that we subsequently had. However, having considered what he seeks to achieve, I again urge him not to move his amendment.
I met the Evangelical Alliance today to discuss the amendment, and I was clear that it is not our intention to prevent those accessing abortion services from receiving spiritual care, nor to prevent those providing such care from doing so. Having fully understood Mr Balfour’s concerns, I think that it is better to rely on the existing protections in the bill and avoid unintended loopholes.
I understand that Mr Balfour is particularly concerned that people who provide spiritual care could be caught by the bill’s offences, and to address that I will say three things. First, there is already an exception in the bill for interactions between someone accessing services and anyone accompanying them with permission. That would apply to family members, friends and, of course, spiritual advisers. Therefore, if a woman seeks spiritual support as she accesses services and invites someone to accompany her and provide it, that person will not commit an offence unless they behave in a way that could either intentionally or recklessly have the particular effects that are set out in sections 4 and 5.
Secondly, if spiritual advisers are offering care to others in the zone who are not accessing abortion services and that private conversation nevertheless covers abortion, that is also very unlikely to be an offence. The exception would be if the conversation was carried on intentionally to have prohibitive effects or was reckless as to whether it had those effects.
Thirdly, and finally, when someone accessing services requests a visit from a spiritual adviser, that, too, would ordinarily be a form of wanted support rather than being an unwanted or unwelcome conversation. Again, where that conversation is true support, is private and is neither intended to have, nor is reckless as to whether it has, any of the effects set out in the offence provisions, such support is unlikely to give rise to an offence.
It is important to note two things in reference to all those scenarios. First, recklessness is a high bar. It means, for example, acting with utter disregard or with a high level of indifference as to the impacts of the behaviour on others. Secondly, I have said that an offence is “unlikely” to be committed because the facts and circumstances will always determine whether that is the case. For example, there may be cases where an adviser goes beyond their support role, does not limit themselves to private conversation or displays very prominent anti-abortion material that could be seen by others.
A specific pastoral exception would also not permit such behaviour, and including one could have the unwanted effect of encouraging others to claim to be offering spiritual care in order to have one-on-one conversations with people accessing services who have not sought support. Even limiting such an amendment to those who are, for example, employed as chaplains or ordained in churches would not entirely remove that possibility but might inadvertently appear to limit the protection for spiritual providers who may not be captured by an exhaustive definition. That could create a loophole for unwanted influence while unintentionally erecting a barrier to those wanting support.
I urge Jeremy Balfour not to move amendment 4. If he does, I ask members to vote against it.
Finally, I turn to amendment 5. I must reiterate the significant concerns that I outlined at stage 2. The amendment runs directly counter to the bill’s aims, as it could allow behaviour to be considered reasonable despite the behaviour meeting the high threshold for the offence provisions. That means that the potential protection that is provided by the bill could be significantly diminished. A person could admit that they had intended to influence someone accessing services but also claim, for example, that they did not know that they were in a safe access zone, no matter how extensive the publicity around it was. They could claim that it was a weekend and that they thought that the premises would be closed. They could claim that the strength of their belief or their own particular circumstances justified the offence. They could state that they intended to provide support for women accessing those services and were therefore justified.
Of course, it will always be possible for an accused to make those arguments; it is their right to produce mitigating evidence in their favour, but including a reasonable excuse defence could create potential loopholes from the outset. As I said at stage 2, no safe access zones legislation across the UK includes such a defence.
In Northern Ireland, such a provision was considered during parliamentary passage and rejected for the reasons that I have outlined. It was the absence of such a defence that the Supreme Court was asked to rule on when it considered the Northern Ireland legislation. The Supreme Court held that the offences in that bill, which are broadly similar to those that we are considering here, constituted a proportionate interference with the rights of anti-abortion groups in the light of the importance of the bill’s aims. Crucially, the Supreme Court considered that the inclusion of a reasonable excuse defence would impact the effectiveness of its provisions with regard to those aims. It remains the Scottish Government’s view that similar considerations apply here.
I thank Mr Balfour for lodging amendment 5 and allowing a full debate in the chamber on the topic. However, I urge him not to move the amendment. If he does, I ask members to vote against it.
15:15
The minister has spoken to the amendments comprehensively, so I will not add too much. I understand that Ms Gallacher’s intention is to further ensure that women can access healthcare free from unwanted influence and harassment, and I thank her for the constructive conversations that we have had, particularly between stages 2 and 3.
I share the minister’s position that the current offences are already capable of capturing someone who was filming or photographing a person accessing or providing services, either recklessly or with the intention of influencing decisions to access services, impeding or preventing access, or causing harassment, alarm or distress. I share the concerns that amendment 3 potentially broadens the scope of the offence and activity that happen outside the safe access zone.
Turning to Mr Balfour’s amendments 4 and 5, we had more than one discussion about the member’s concerns prior to stage 3, and I hope that he found those conversations as helpful as I did. My significant concern with Mr Balfour’s two amendments is that they could create potential loopholes to allow unwanted influence and could erode the protections offered by the bill. I have no doubt that that was not Mr Balfour’s intention, but that could nonetheless be the reality if his amendments 4 and 5 were agreed to. We must avoid creating loopholes, and we must ensure that the bill’s protections are as robust as possible. For that reason, I urge the member not to move his amendments. If he does, I ask the Parliament to vote against amendments 4 and 5.
I welcome the comments that have been made in relation to my amendment 3 and Jeremy Balfour’s amendments 4 and 5. I will start with my amendment. I completely understand where the minister and Gillian Mackay are coming from regarding current protections in the bill. The intention was to strengthen the bill as much as possible to ensure that women do not face unwanted harassment or recording, particularly in the days of social media, as Carol Mochan pointed out.
My colleague Jeremy Balfour’s amendments 4 and 5 are important, because they provide the right checks and balances that we need for bills such as this. Regarding chaplaincy services, it is right that we protect the right to freedom of religion, ensuring that choices are made by individuals and that they have the right care, services and support required in their time of need.
As Jeremy Balfour has highlighted, the defence of reasonableness has been used to strengthen previous legislation, while determining when behaviour is reasonable. There are measures and metrics in terms of what is acceptable and not acceptable when it comes to behaviours. For that reason, I believe that it was right to lodge amendments 4 and 5 in order to have further discussions on that point.
As advised previously, I do not intend to press my amendment 3 to a vote.
Amendment 3, by agreement, withdrawn.
Section 6—Exceptions to offences
Amendment 4, in the name of Jeremy Balfour, was debated with amendment 3.
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”
Group 4 is on the definition of “protected premises”. Amendment 6, in the name of Jeremy Balfour, is the only amendment in the group.
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 recognise that Mr Balfour seeks to strengthen safeguards in the bill with amendment 6, and I accept that section 10, to which the amendment relates, requires robust scrutiny. However, I am resisting amendment 6 precisely because I believe that the bill already includes important safeguards and provides for an appropriate level of scrutiny. Those safeguards begin from the moment a change is contemplated.
First, at stage 2, I lodged an amendment to ensure that the powers could be used in a targeted way to cover only individual premises within a class of place, where that would be more appropriate than covering the entire class. As a purely illustrative example, if GP practices were approved as a class of place to provide abortion services, ministers could, if appropriate, extend protection to cover a single practice—or even some, rather than all, practices.
Secondly, as a matter of law, the Scottish ministers must act compatibly with the European convention on human rights. All decisions must therefore be evidence based. Ministers will consider the full circumstances at the time, including the impacts on convention rights, and no additional protected premises can be added unless ministers are satisfied that it would be proportionate to do so. Then, once regulations are prepared, they will rightly be subject to the affirmative procedure and the full scrutiny of the Parliament.
As I set out at the start, I remain of the view that the affirmative procedure is the right approach and provides the appropriate level of scrutiny. The Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee considered that power at stage 1 and concluded in its report:
“The affirmative procedure appears appropriate given the potential significance of the measures such regulations could introduce. The affirmative procedure will give the Parliament an opportunity to ensure it is content that such regulations strike the right balance between Convention Rights.”
Mr Balfour’s amendment 6, although well intentioned, would, as a matter of practicality, introduce a potentially significant delay before we could provide protection, even though, from the safeguards that I have outlined, we must have evidence that service users and providers need that protection. Also, as a matter of principle, it would send a clear message that we do not think that the usual affirmative procedure provides a robust level of scrutiny and parliamentary oversight. If we accept that in this instance, it will unavoidably set a precedent for other regulations. That is not a step that we want or need to take.
I therefore urge members to accept the careful and considered judgment of the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee and to vote against amendment 6 if Mr Balfour presses it.
I have very little to add to what the minister has said. She has set out clearly the safeguards that the bill already provides and the negative consequences that amendment 6 could bring.
I will add only that, as a member of the Scottish Parliament, I believe that the scrutiny that we provide when affirmative regulations are laid results in strong and effective challenge, and we should not undermine that by suggesting otherwise. We certainly should not do that when the result would be that, for no or very little benefit in this case, it would certainly take longer to protect women and staff when we have evidence that they are at risk of harm. Therefore, I, too, urge that, if it is pressed, members should not vote for amendment 6.
I call Jeremy Balfour—actually, we have a late entrant. I call Bob Doris.
I have a brief contribution. I listened carefully to what Mr Balfour said. Some of the concerns that he raised were concerns that I raised in an intervention on the member who led on the bill at stage 1. I was therefore going to follow the exchange between the minister and Mr Balfour very closely this afternoon. I have done so, and I am reassured that there are no blanket provisions contained in the bill, which was absolutely my concern during the stage 1 process. Any change should be introduced by an affirmative instrument and should not just be a decision made by a minister. I think that that gets the balance absolutely right.
I wanted to put on the record that I had concerns at stage 1 but that what I have heard this afternoon achieves the correct balance in relation to scrutiny and proportionality.
Minister, do you have anything to add in response to what Mr Doris said?
No, I have nothing to add.
Ms Mackay, do you have anything to add in response to what Mr Doris said?
No. I simply thank Mr Doris for his interest.
I call Jeremy Balfour to wind up and to press or withdraw 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.
I know that my intervention comes as a surprise, but I am listening with interest to Mr Balfour. I speak as a former convener of the DPLR Committee, so this is a little bit technical.
Mr Balfour has described the affirmative procedure as possibly improper. It is not improper; it is proper—it is just that the super-affirmative procedure is better and more rigorous. I think that that is the argument that he is trying to make. Does he agree with me on that?
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.
Jeremy Balfour is speaking about rights, and that is absolutely correct. However, does he acknowledge that it is also about women’s rights to access healthcare, so there is a balancing act? It is not just one set of rights that we are talking about.
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.
The question is, that amendment 6 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division.
As this is the first division at stage 3, I suspend the meeting for around five minutes to allow members to access the digital voting system.
15:29 Meeting suspended.
We move to the vote on amendment 6, in the name of Jeremy Balfour. Members should cast their votes now.
For
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con)
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Dowey, Sharon (South Scotland) (Con)
Eagle, Tim (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Findlay, Russell (West Scotland) (Con)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gallacher, Meghan (Central Scotland) (Con)
Golden, Maurice (North East Scotland) (Con)
Gosal, Pam (West Scotland) (Con)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Gulhane, Sandesh (Glasgow) (Con)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Hoy, Craig (South Scotland) (Con)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
McCall, Roz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con)
Regan, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (Alba)
Ross, Douglas (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
White, Tess (North East Scotland) (Con)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Against
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adam, Karen (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Brown, Siobhian (Ayr) (SNP)
Burgess, Ariane (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Chapman, Maggie (North East Scotland) (Green)
Choudhury, Foysol (Lothian) (Lab)
Clark, Katy (West Scotland) (Lab)
Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Don, Natalie (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Dunbar, Jackie (Aberdeen Donside) (SNP)
Duncan-Glancy, Pam (Glasgow) (Lab)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
Fairlie, Jim (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Neil (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Gillian (Central Scotland) (Green)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Marra, Michael (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
McAllan, Màiri (Clydesdale) (SNP)
McArthur, Liam (Orkney Islands) (LD)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
McLennan, Paul (East Lothian) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
McNair, Marie (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
Minto, Jenni (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Mochan, Carol (South Scotland) (Lab)
Nicoll, Audrey (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)
Robertson, Angus (Edinburgh Central) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Roddick, Emma (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Slater, Lorna (Lothian) (Green)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stevenson, Collette (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Stewart, Kaukab (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP)
Sweeney, Paul (Glasgow) (Lab)
Thomson, Michelle (Falkirk East) (SNP)
Todd, Maree (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Tweed, Evelyn (Stirling) (SNP)
Villalba, Mercedes (North East Scotland) (Lab) [Proxy vote cast by Richard Leonard]
Whitfield, Martin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Whitham, Elena (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)
Abstentions
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 29, Against 81, Abstentions 1.
Amendment 6 disagreed to.
Section 11—Ministerial guidance
Group 5 is on guidance. Amendment 8, in the name of Rachael Hamilton, is the only amendment in the group.
I thank Gillian Mackay and the minister, Jenni Minto, for their engagement. That was welcome and refreshing, and it was nice to have a nice collegiate approach.
Amendment 8 outlines that ministerial guidance must include information on how to assess the effectiveness of safe access zones in protecting the rights of those who wish to access the service or those who provide and facilitate the provision of abortion services
“without fear of intimidation or harassment”.
That goes to the heart of what we are trying to achieve.
Amendment 8 aims to improve the guidance that is given to operators to assess effectiveness when establishing, extending, reducing or terminating the safe access zones for protected premises.
The minister and Gillian Mackay—[Interruption.]
Ms Hamilton, please resume your seat. There is too much noise in the chamber, and we need to hear Ms Hamilton speak to her amendment. Please continue, Ms Hamilton.
When I engaged with the minister and Gillian Mackay on my original amendment 42, which I lodged at stage 2, we had a fulsome conversation about how I could achieve my amendment’s intent. Gillian Mackay and the minister suggested that they would look at including that in guidance, and I was very grateful for that. I look forward to what they have to say.
I move amendment 8.
I thank Rachael Hamilton for lodging amendment 8. Although I must oppose it, we had an extremely productive discussion ahead of stage 3, for which I am grateful.
I am in full agreement with Ms Hamilton that safe access zones must be assessed in a way that goes beyond simple numerical analysis, including offence statistics and level of activity outside premises.
From the outset of the process, our aim has been to protect access to healthcare and ensure that those who access or provide services can do so without fear of intimidation, harassment or public judgment. We must find ways to measure how well we are achieving that, in ways that truly consider patient and staff experience. However, I do not think that amendment 8 is the way to do it.
My first concern is that there is already a provision in section 11A for the effectiveness of zones to be reviewed, and that requirement, quite rightly, sits with ministers. That review will also be published and laid before the Parliament.
It is true that operators have judgments to make about whether the zones for their premises offer protection from the specific offences that are set out in the bill, but I do not think that that role should be extended to cover a more general review of effectiveness that requires them to consider different factors. I fear that doing so would put an undue burden on healthcare staff, especially when, as I have said, that responsibility must and ought to be discharged by ministers.
My second concern is the way in which the amendment could potentially cut across the specific instances in which operators must consider the adequacy of protection that is offered by safe access zones. As members are aware, operators may apply to ministers for an extension of a zone for their premises under section 7.
My understanding is that the amendment, as it is currently worded, contrary to what the minister has just said, would dictate what should be in the guidance, not what operators must do. That contradicts what the minister has just said. The amendment simply explains what the guidance should contain, and would not necessarily place statutory or onerous duties on operators.
I am just going on to cover that. As I said, operators may apply to ministers for an extension of a zone for their premises under section 7. They can make such an application when they consider that the size of the zone
“does not adequately protect persons who are accessing, providing or facilitating”
the service from the behaviours that are prohibited in the zones—for example, influencing or causing alarm or distress. There will be a range of factors that operators may take into account in making an application, and those might vary over time. It was therefore considered more appropriate to provide that those factors would be set out in guidance rather than prescribed in the bill. Section 11 allows for that to happen and, in doing so, balances the need for flexibility with the need to support operators to make what might sometimes be difficult judgments. That means that there is already a very clear test set out in the bill that operators must consider before making an application for an extension.
As members will note, Ms Hamilton’s amendment is not framed in the same terms as that test. The reference, for example, to “fear of intimidation” differs from the effects that zones seek to prevent, such as influencing and impeding access. The amendment could consequently add confusion about the assessment and considerations that operators must undertake.
It seems to me that what the minister describes as going into the guidance that is provided for in the bill does not implicitly consider access to healthcare. That goes to the heart of the bill, and that is what has motivated me to lodge amendment 8. We all had to coalesce around the bill, which has been quite a challenging one. There has been little recent legislation that has been as challenging as this bill has been for us all to grapple with. Accepting that individuals need to have an indication in the bill of what we want to achieve from the guidance is really important.
As I said at the start of my comments, the aim from the outset of the process has been to protect access to healthcare and to ensure that those accessing or providing services can do so free from, and without fear of, intimidation, harassment or public judgment. I believe that Ms Hamilton wants to ensure that the effectiveness of zones is given full consideration. Therefore, although I cannot support amendment 8, I commit to working closely with her over the summer on the scope and terms of the review to ensure that they bring valuable and holistic scrutiny if the bill is passed today, which I believe is what Ms Hamilton is looking for.
I hope that that provides Ms Hamilton and the Parliament as a whole with the assurances that are required. Therefore, I urge Ms Hamilton not to press her amendment, and I urge members not to support it in the event that it is pressed.
I echo the minister’s appreciation of Ms Hamilton’s willingness, ahead of stage 3, to explore how the bill can be strengthened. I am in complete agreement that the review of safe access zones must be meaningful. However, I must echo the minister when she says that the amendment is not the best way to achieve that, and I support the minister’s explanation. I welcome the minister’s offer to work with members over the summer to shape the scope of the post-legislative review, and I am more than willing to help to support that process if it is helpful.
I hope that that satisfies what Ms Hamilton is looking for from amendment 8. I hope that Ms Hamilton will not press her amendment. If she does, I urge members not to support it.
15:45
I call Rachael Hamilton to wind up and to press or withdraw amendment 8.
As I said in previous meetings, many of us want to ensure that the bill is as effective as it possibly can be. The concept is new and there is little from which we can draw a comparison in relation to what other legislatures have done on the issue. Therefore, we are tiptoeing to what we hope will deliver the right outcome.
In the spirit of collaboration, I will not press amendment 8. I would have been interested to find out whether other parties would have supported my amendment. I welcome the minister’s offer to me—I am sure that she will extend it to others—to shape the post-legislative review through the summer. I accept that.
Amendment 8, by agreement, withdrawn.
Section 11A—Review of Act
Group 6 is on review of the act. Amendment 9, in the name of Tess White, is grouped with amendments 7, 10 and 11.
At stage 2, I lodged an amendment on reporting on and reviewing the act in order to facilitate post-legislative scrutiny as a means of implementing the recommendations of the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee’s stage 1 report. I agreed with the minister and Gillian Mackay that we would work collaboratively on the issue prior to stage 3, and I thank them for their shared working and engagement with me.
Amendment 9 revisits the issue of information on the use of the new offences that the act will create. I understand from the minister that the standard range of reporting measures for those offences will be available and that she anticipates that such details should be included in the post-legislative review report. However, “should” is not “must”, and my amendment introduces a requirement to include data on the number of arrests, criminal proceedings and convictions in such a report.
Given the balance of rights involved in the legislation, I discussed with the minister and Gillian Mackay the possibility of reducing the review period from five to three years. I am really pleased that my suggestion has been taken forward by the Scottish Government and by Rachael Hamilton in amendment 11.
Amendment 10, which I have worked on with the Scottish Government and Ms Mackay, would put beyond doubt that enforcement agencies must be consulted during the review process. The effect would be that Scottish ministers, when undertaking a review, must consult Police Scotland and the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service, operators of protected premises or their representatives and such other persons as are considered appropriate.
I move amendment 9.
First, amendment 7, in my name, is a minor amendment to section 11A and would ensure that ministers can delegate the function to carry out the review of the legislation and prepare a report of the review’s findings.
I will touch briefly on amendments 10 and 11, which I am happy to support. As I noted during stage 2, it is important that we give the act time to bed in and that we do not unduly burden health workers and enforcement agencies. The change to the timings proposed under amendment 11 would achieve a reasonable balance. Additionally, although consultation with enforcement agencies and operators would have happened as a matter of course, given the need to ensure that the review is robust, I am content that amendment 10 would make the consultation explicit in the bill.
Finally, I must ask that Tess White not press amendment 9. I remain fully convinced that the information that she seeks will be taken into account during any review. I can also confirm that information relating to crimes committed under safe access zones legislation will be published annually, and that will include information on numbers of crimes recorded, criminal proceedings and convictions. Therefore, transparency will already be built in around how the offences operate in practice, and that will happen more regularly than the amendment would allow.
The annual data might also provide a fuller picture than provided for in the amendment, given that arrest data is neither readily available nor the most reliable metric, as it does not cover instances in which a crime is recorded but no arrest is made. In light of that on-going transparency, and the fact that the review in question will have a different purpose, I do not think that it is wise to prescribe those criteria, because the review must cover a range of factors, including staff and patient impacts. As Rachael Hamilton mentioned in our discussions, it must take a broad, holistic look at the legislation.
To be clear, amendment 9 does not prevent consideration of those wider factors, and I know that Tess White does not intend that it should. However, in setting out only those specific examples, there is a real risk that, particularly in the future, the amendment will bend the review in that direction. That presents a related risk. It is my hope that, in time, the bill, if passed today, will mean that women and staff do not encounter anti-abortion activity in zones because that activity will no longer be carried out, not because the police will be regularly intervening to prevent it. If that happens, though, absence of activity must not be seen as a definitive sign that the protection offered by the safe access zones is no longer necessary.
The amendment that I lodged at stage 2 to insert the review requirement did not prescribe such matters, specifically to avoid that kind of limited approach. As I have a real concern that amendment 9 would reintroduce that danger, I hope that Tess White will not press it. If she does, I ask the chamber to vote against it.
I thank Gillian Mackay for her support for my amendment 11, which will reduce the review cycles from every five to every three years. It is essential that the legislation maintains effective protection for those who access and provide abortion services, and I believe that amendment 11 achieves a more reasonable balance, ensuring that the legislation operates effectively without the formal review process becoming overly burdensome. The amendment does not change the timing of the initial review, which must be conducted within two years of commencement.
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.
I agree with Ms Mackay’s views on the amendments, so I will not repeat what has already been said.
The bill provides for the ability to delegate both the review and reporting functions. I therefore welcome and support the clarity that amendment 7 seeks to provide.
The Government has always been clear in our commitment to transparency and to ensuring that Parliament is given its rightful role in the scrutiny of legislation. That is the aim of amendments 10 and 11, and I am happy to support them. I see, too, that the ability to conduct a review every three years would ensure that the legislation remains proportionate and in line with its overall aims.
Finally, I do not support Ms White’s amendment 9, although I very much appreciate the conversations about it that she and I had. The amendment seeks to set in stone specific statistical detail that is to be included in the report. I understand the reasons for including data on offences, but I am not convinced that doing so would provide a full picture of the operation of the act or its effectiveness. Any reporting needs to be able to balance the statistics with anecdotal evidence and should be done in the round, as opposed to relying solely on figures.
As Ms Mackay has already explained, crime statistics are routinely reported, so that information should be available through other routes. Tess White’s amendment 10 already provides for consultation with enforcement agencies, as well as operators and other such persons as are considered appropriate, and my view is that the information needed to provide a truly meaningful report can be captured through that route. In my previous discussions with Ms White, that has been her intent, but amendment 9 does not provide for that. I therefore join Ms Mackay in urging Ms White not to press that amendment.
I call Tess White to wind up and to press or withdraw amendment 9.
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.
The question is, that amendment 9 be agreed to. Are we agreed?
Members: No.
There will be a division. Members should cast their votes now.
The vote is closed.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I seek your guidance, because as the vote was going on, the timer on the app leapt from saying that there were 15 seconds left to saying that the vote was closed. I just wonder whether my vote was recorded.
Thank you, Mr Whitfield. I would say two things. First, your vote has been recorded. Secondly, the division time was, in fact, longer rather than shorter, because of a technical issue. I hope that that provides assurance.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. Apologies, but my app froze. I would have voted yes.
Thank you, Mr Hoy. Your vote will be recorded.
For
Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con)
Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con)
Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con)
Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con)
Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Dowey, Sharon (South Scotland) (Con)
Eagle, Tim (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Findlay, Russell (West Scotland) (Con)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Gallacher, Meghan (Central Scotland) (Con)
Golden, Maurice (North East Scotland) (Con)
Gosal, Pam (West Scotland) (Con)
Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (Con)
Gulhane, Sandesh (Glasgow) (Con)
Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con)
Hoy, Craig (South Scotland) (Con)
Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con)
McCall, Roz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con)
Regan, Ash (Edinburgh Eastern) (Alba)
Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD)
Ross, Douglas (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con)
White, Tess (North East Scotland) (Con)
Whittle, Brian (South Scotland) (Con)
Against
Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP)
Adam, Karen (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP)
Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab)
Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP)
Boyack, Sarah (Lothian) (Lab)
Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP)
Brown, Siobhian (Ayr) (SNP)
Burgess, Ariane (Highlands and Islands) (Green)
Chapman, Maggie (North East Scotland) (Green)
Choudhury, Foysol (Lothian) (Lab)
Clark, Katy (West Scotland) (Lab)
Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP)
Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP)
Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP)
Don, Natalie (Renfrewshire North and West) (SNP)
Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP)
Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP)
Dunbar, Jackie (Aberdeen Donside) (SNP)
Duncan-Glancy, Pam (Glasgow) (Lab)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
Fairlie, Jim (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP)
Forbes, Kate (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP)
Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP)
Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP)
Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP)
Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab)
Gray, Neil (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green)
Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP)
Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green)
Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP)
Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP)
Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP)
Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab)
Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP)
Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab)
Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab)
MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP)
MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)
Mackay, Gillian (Central Scotland) (Green)
Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP)
Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP)
Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP)
Marra, Michael (North East Scotland) (Lab)
Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP)
McAllan, Màiri (Clydesdale) (SNP)
McKee, Ivan (Glasgow Provan) (SNP)
McKelvie, Christina (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (SNP)
McLennan, Paul (East Lothian) (SNP)
McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP)
McNair, Marie (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP)
McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab)
Minto, Jenni (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Mochan, Carol (South Scotland) (Lab)
Nicoll, Audrey (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP)
Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP)
Roddick, Emma (Highlands and Islands) (SNP)
Ruskell, Mark (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Green)
Slater, Lorna (Lothian) (Green)
Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP)
Stevenson, Collette (East Kilbride) (SNP)
Stewart, Kaukab (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP)
Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP)
Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP)
Sweeney, Paul (Glasgow) (Lab)
Thomson, Michelle (Falkirk East) (SNP)
Todd, Maree (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP)
Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP)
Tweed, Evelyn (Stirling) (SNP)
Villalba, Mercedes (North East Scotland) (Lab) [Proxy vote cast by Richard Leonard]
Whitfield, Martin (South Scotland) (Lab)
Whitham, Elena (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP)
Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD)
Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP)
Abstentions
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
The result of the division is: For 29, Against 79, Abstentions 1.
Amendment 9 disagreed to.
Amendment 7 moved—[Gillian Mackay]—and agreed to.
Amendment 10 moved—[Tess White]—and agreed to.
Amendment 11 moved—[Rachael Hamilton]—and agreed to.
That ends consideration of amendments. There will be a short pause before we move to the next item of business.