Seòmar agus comataidhean

I thank the minister for her time and discussion on this area. Scottish Labour has taken a great deal of time to go over it because, as both Sandesh Gulhane and Jeremy Balfour have said, such a change would be significant and important. On balance, we believe that future care needs to be a part of the bill, because things have changed for women in this area of healthcare and it is important that, should further change be needed, it can be done in a timeous manner. We therefore believe that the bill, as it is set out, with the amendments from the Government, would be sufficient to balance human rights with the restrictions that any additional zones might add, and that it would be fair to allow the minister to do that. We therefore support the minister’s amendments.

However, we will vote against amendments 37 and 38 because we believe that it is better for the minister to be able to act on those things and that the bill has a good balance.

I want to put on record a few points about the proposed reporting and review section, which, as other members have indicated, will be so important in understanding the way in which the bill functions in our communities. We have looked carefully at all the amendments in this group, and we absolutely understand why they have been lodged. I am very heartened by the discussion that has just taken place. Our intention had been to support Gillian Mackay’s amendment 39, but to ask the Government to work with other members on the proposed new section.

The committee took a lot of evidence on section 5 and, on balance, it was important that we did so. Scottish Labour has considered all the points and wants to try to get the balance of human rights correct. We support the debate this morning.

I will mention, in particular, amendments 17, 18 and 20, in the name of Sandesh Gulhane, which we feel are not necessary and a bit unclear. I appreciate the member’s comments this morning, which have been helpful in clarifying his intention, but we will not support his amendments.

I appreciate Jeremy Balfour’s contribution on the amendments in his name, as we have been considering all those points. We are glad that amendment 21 is a probing amendment—and it was helpful, Mr Balfour, that you clarified that particular point. We have considered again and again the matter that amendment 22 relates to; the member is absolutely right that we need to get that particular issue right, and we hope that he will consider working with the Government on it as we go towards stage 3.

That is helpful—thank you. Scottish Labour would be prepared to speak to you about it, as we go into stage 3.

We will not support amendment 23. We believe that flexibility is required, because we are not always sure of the opening and closing times of healthcare services and when people might be coming out of them. As the amendment would be restrictive, we do not want it to be included.

We believe that not mentioning behaviours is the best way to approach the bill as set out. Therefore, we will not support amendment 24.

On Rachael Hamilton’s amendment 56 and Meghan Gallacher’s amendment 57, I appreciate the members’ contributions with regard to filming, because we are sympathetic to that issue. However, although we absolutely understand the motives for the amendments, we have some concerns that they fall into the area of placing behaviours in the bill. We hope that they will consider working together on this as we move towards stage 3, but, although we are keeping the issue under consideration, we will not be supporting these amendments at this stage.

Scottish Labour’s position is that amendment 42 is a reasonable amendment, but we are not sure that it is particularly necessary to include it in that part of the bill, as the bill’s intention is evident throughout.

The First Minister has set out tackling child poverty as his key mission and has acknowledged that almost one in four children in Scotland are still living in poverty. Given the importance that the cabinet secretary and the First Minister place on tackling hunger, will the Government listen to key stakeholders such as Aberlour Child Care Trust and increase the free school meals income threshold for pupils in years when free entitlement does not yet exist?

I thank the cabinet secretary for the information on this important issue. I am aware that one of the key issues in relation to AHPs is the link with universities and the provision of a flexible model. Have you had any discussion with universities or other portfolio holders that might help with that?

I, too, thank Marie McNair for bringing this important debate to the chamber. On behalf of Scottish Labour, I welcome national epilepsy week 2024, and recognise—as other members have said—its importance in raising awareness of epilepsy and the challenges that are faced by those who are living with the condition.

As the motion states, and as other members have mentioned, epilepsy

“is the most prevalent of the main neurological conditions”,

impacting around 58,000 people across Scotland. It is right, therefore, that we use this week to draw attention to the condition and have conversations about epilepsy, and perhaps to have a look ourselves at what to do when someone has a seizure, which Marie McNair explained. Awareness of how to respond is key, and I pay tribute to Epilepsy Scotland and local epilepsy support groups in Ayrshire and Arran and across the South Scotland region for the work that they do. Their work in raising awareness and in providing individual and family support and care, and their level of expertise, are absolutely critical, and they are deservedly recognised in the motion.

I also thank our NHS nurses and doctors, and epilepsy specialists, who diagnose epilepsy, provide first-class healthcare and family support where it is required and respond in emergency situations, including when someone has their first seizure. As we all know, our NHS is under significant pressure, but the determination of our NHS staff to provide the best level of service is greater now than it ever has been, and it is right that members have recognised their contribution in the chamber today.

I turn to Epilepsy Scotland’s #BeyondSeizure campaign, and reiterate its broader points surrounding the wider impacts of epilepsy—as other members have highlighted—in respect of mental health, memory, feelings of isolation, employment and driving. As we know, epilepsy is not defined simply by having seizures; it is much more than that. It can completely change an individual’s day-to-day life, their abilities and their mental and physical health. Support must, therefore, not be restricted to raising awareness of seizures and how to respond—it must cover the other impacts that may not immediately come to mind for people.

Although I recognise the need for Epilepsy Scotland’s funding to match the service delivery that it provides and enable it to extend the support that it offers, I believe—as has been said many times by members across the chamber—that the Scottish Government has to reflect on how the third sector is funded. It is easy for the Scottish Government to pin responsibility on the NHS and local government, but in reality those bodies are absolutely cash-strapped as a result of decisions that have been made by Governments across the UK.

This is an important debate, and I believe that it has achieved its aim of raising awareness in the chamber of the wider impacts of epilepsy and the need for better resources to ensure that support can be delivered. Epilepsy is a topic that we must speak about more. The scale of its prevalence in Scotland and across the UK confirms that, and I hope that this national epilepsy week will go some way towards achieving that.

As I said, Scottish Labour welcomes Epilepsy Scotland and epilepsy support groups across Scotland and within the NHS, and we hope that this week helps to deliver some long-term stability and progress in the area. I thank all my colleagues for their contributions, and I thank Marie McNair once again for bringing the debate to the chamber.

To ask the Scottish Government when it will next review the income threshold for free school meals for those pupils not in a year where provision is currently free. (S6O-03442)

As has been said, statistics from England and Wales show that the uptake of immunisation against whooping cough during pregnancy has reduced sharply. As the First Minister has indicated, immunisation is important for expectant mothers. Do we know whether the trend is similar in Scotland? The First Minister mentioned some relevant responses, but will he work with Public Health Scotland to ensure that specific statistics on that are published, so that we can properly scrutinise the uptake by pregnant mothers?