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.

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?

Thank you. That is one of the issues that we need to get right for both clinicians and young people.

I wonder if you could you give us a little information. One thing that has interested us is people presenting at the clinics who are same-sex attracted and how we make sure that there is that space for those young people. You mentioned a case earlier in which a person reflected on what had happened to them in that regard. If I put that issue in the context of a conversion therapy bill, do you think that we need to take that apart and look at having a bill that deals with conversion therapy in relation to same-sex attraction and trans identity? Should we consider doing that?

That is really helpful. Thank you very much.

You have covered a lot of what I was going to ask about. I am interested in the notion that, if we want to meet more targets, particularly on childhood obesity, we need to move away from talking about things to taking action. I believe that Governments must take responsibility for their part of the picture: it is not all about individual choice, because we know that communities are not set up that way, especially in areas that have high levels of health inequality. If you were going to give us homework, on what three areas could the committee achievably push the Government to take action?

Why were no trans people included in the review team?