Meeting of the Parliament 10 March 2026 [Draft]
I think that the positions of both Finlay Carson and Rona Mackay can be encompassed if they support amendments 27, 160 and 33, which are the scaffolding to ensure that we put safeguards into the bill, as far as we can, in a proportionate way. If coercion does not exist, as Rona Mackay suggests, let us put in the safeguards anyway; and, if it does exist, let us make sure that we absolutely put them in. Both of those interventions highlight the need for members to support all three amendments.
Finally, I have a swathe of amendments in the group that seek to amend references to coercion. There are repeated references in the bill to a person not being
“coerced or pressured by any other person”.
However, there is concern that coercion in other forms, such as those that we have discussed—this links back to indirect pressures—might not be fully recognised using the current terminology. Amendments 24, 25, 35, 36, 41, 76, 77, 80, 82 and 84—I simply list them; I will not, the Deputy Presiding Officer will be relieved to hear, speak to them individually—therefore all simply delete the words “by any other person” each time that the bill mentions a person being “coerced or pressured”, in order to reflect that not all pressures arise from other people. I believe that those amendments are worth while, but I again remind members that the key substantive amendments—