Seòmar agus comataidhean

It would be helpful to get more detail on those specifics in writing after the meeting.

Perhaps I have been sitting next to Mr Mason for too long, but how much did the very full review that you carried out cost? Is the cost being covered by the Scottish Government or by Social Security Scotland?

Thank you. Cabinet secretary, when the original charter was being scrutinised, there were lots of discussions about what status it should have and whether it should have legal status. The Parliament came to the view that it should remain as was proposed rather than have legal status. The Social Security (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill, which seeks to make changes to the Social Security (Scotland) Act 2018, is going through Parliament at the moment. As part of your work on that, has any thought been given to whether the charter has the right status or whether it should have a higher status?

Jack Evans, you mentioned council tax. Do you want to add anything at this point?

That is helpful. Let me now start the bidding war with Jack Evans, and I will then work down the line. What should the Scottish child payment be, figure-wise, and can you give me a justification for your figure?

I wonder if I could go back to something that was said earlier. We do not want to cause confusion, but terminology and words matter. The reason why I asked the question about how the money is being spent is that I wonder whether “Scottish child payment” is good terminology to use and whether we would use it if we were starting again. It can make parents feel guilty if they spend the money on heating and food rather than on their children, even though their children obviously benefit from heating and food. Would you call it something different? We would not want to change it now, because it would cause too much confusion, but, as a philosophical issue, is it the right name? Ruth, you are smiling, so I will pick on you first.

The other side of the coin is that the Scottish child payment has to be paid for. If the Scottish Government were here, it would tell you that it has a fixed budget and that we will have a £1.2 billion deficit in the social security benefits budget in two years’ time.

I will start with Ruth Boyle, because Stephen Sinclair may not want to answer the question. Which other budget would you take that money from—healthcare, education or transport? Which budget is less deserving than this one?

Sorry, Paul. Good morning and welcome to the panel. Thank you for coming. I appreciate that it is early days and we may not have this information yet but, from talking to people, do you know where the money is being spent? Is it being spent on general family requirements or specifically on children and the care and help that they require?

Hypothetically, if a clinic was open between 9 and 5, Monday to Friday, and it was closed on a Saturday afternoon, would it be legal, in Gillian Mackay’s opinion, to have a demonstration outside it then? Would that be legal if there were no staff going in or out of it, and it was a Saturday afternoon or 2 o’clock in the morning, for example?

Good morning to the convener, the committee, the minister and Gillian Mackay.

Most of the amendments that I lodged are probing amendments to find out where the Government and the member in charge of the bill stand. I will not move amendments 35 and 37, and I am grateful for the tone of the debate so far.

The point of amendments 35 and 37 is to seek to limit the expansion of the definition of “protected premises”. It is not unreasonable to suggest that pharmacies and primary care clinics, such as GP surgeries, should be omitted from the bill. I understand that those places can provide take-home services but that is not their primary function. In fact, they rarely provide those services in comparison to other prescriptions and care that they provide.

As the committee recognises in its stage 1 report and as the Government recognises, there is a balance to be struck. Women absolutely have the right to feel safe and protected, but there is also the right to free speech. We have to get the correct balance.

There are 900 GP surgeries in Scotland and more than 1,200 pharmacies, most of which are on our high streets. To expand the definition of “protected premises” to include all of those would shut down every one of those high streets to any form of demonstration, stall or even possible conversation. I accept the minister’s comments that she has no intention of doing that, but as she pointed out, we are future proofing the bill for the next generations. Another Government might come down the road and want to expand the definition, perhaps not for appropriate reasons.

Because I am a Lothian member, I had the Lothians and Edinburgh in mind when drafting many of my amendments. For example, if Boots on Princes Street were to become a protected place, it would mean that there could be no demonstration in Princes Street gardens, George Street and other parts of our city centre because of the 200m rule.

The bill is trying to walk a fine line between ensuring that women can access services and upholding the right to freedom of speech, expression and religion. The way forward is to exclude pharmacists and general practitioners from the bill at the moment. If, as the minister pointed out, things change in the future and the Parliament wants to revisit that, it can do that through amendments or a fresh bill.

There are GP surgeries in many of our city centres and I am concerned that, if we pass the bill unamended, we will take out vast areas where demonstrations might not legally be allowed to take place. Therefore, before stage 3, I will reflect on what the minister said and what other members say.