Meeting of the Parliament (Hybrid) 09 September 2020
The cabinet secretary is absolutely right—of course, those protections should be in place. The Parliament respects him as an individual for the way that he has handled the many horrible things that have happened to him and his family.
At the base point of the debate is language—the words that matter in a bill and the interpretation of that wording in law. The concern on this side of the chamber is that that interpretation is open to so much chance and dispute that the bill as it stands—particularly part 2—is in danger of inciting some of the worst aspects of human behaviour. Is it not right that we remove the bill and start again?