Seòmar agus comataidhean

I was asked to talk a wee bit about unmet need—that has been raised in the discussion, which has been interesting. My question is about unmet need and eligibility, which involves a conflict in terms of how people live their best lives. Have any studies looked at the interplay between what someone is assessed to need and what the unmet need in the wider context is?

To ask the Scottish Government what assessment it has made of any economic and social impact of there being no rail services between Ayr, Girvan and Stranraer since the line was closed in September 2023. (S6O-03567)

I, too, welcome the news that we can expect services to resume in July. However, businesses and commuters in those towns and the surrounding areas have suffered as a result of the disruption. A big problem has been the lack of affordable and reliable bus routes to pick up the strain when such events occur. Since 2007, more than 1,200 bus routes have been lost in Scotland and, in real terms, the cost of bus travel has increased.

A recent report by the Institute for Public Policy Research, “Wheels of change: Promoting fair and green transport in rural Scotland”, has called on the Scottish Government to identify, fund and champion the anchor towns and communities that would provide public services and transport hubs for people who live in rural areas. What action has been taken in that regard?

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 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?