���˿���

Similar to Gillian Mackay’s amendment 39, my amendment 50 would require ministers to publish a report on the effectiveness of safe access zones each year. As per an earlier amendment of mine, it draws on the example of the Northern Ireland legislation. Former member of the Legislative Assembly Clare Bailey described how she and her colleagues approached the bill, which was attractive to my Scottish Parliament colleagues and seemed to be an elegant solution to what we are trying to achieve here.

I believe that amendment 50 would improve Parliament’s ability to scrutinise the effectiveness of the bill and increase accountability. However, I recognise that Gillian Mackay has pointed out that her amendment 39 requires the report to be laid before Parliament.

Gillian Mackay has also pointed out that her amendment 39 has a different timescale, being over two years rather than a year, as in Tess White’s and my amendments. Gillian Mackay’s amendment takes a broader view and is not as specific as mine. Considering the fact that the bill seeks to ensure that women can access healthcare without fear and harassment, I believe that my amendment 50 is more targeted to the outcomes.

I thank Gillian Mackay for saying that she will work with my colleague Tess White and me on the issue, if her amendment 39 is agreed to. I believe that Ms White’s amendment is complementary to both amendments, but it seeks to gather wider information on a broader set of metrics. I hope that we can achieve something that is positive to ensure that the bill works.

Finally, the point that Gillian Mackay made about the timescale of two years is slightly contradictory to what she was trying to argue previously about the need to be fleet of foot when recognising, extending or reducing the zone measurements. We need to be live to the situation. If the reporting mechanism provision was for a year, rather than two years, it would show Parliament the picture on the ground at the time, but I understand Gillian Mackay’s comments on being reflexive.

With respect, convener, I would like to come back to the minister.

That was not what I asked. I asked whether the minister believes that the powers that are set out in the bill are sufficient to extend anything beyond 200m, because that circumstance could arise, whether it is from 150m or 200m.

I completely agree. I think that it is a difficult landscape right now, because we do not know how other legislation is working in other legislatures. It would have been useful to find that out, but given that this is a brand-new area, we have to take the approach that is proposed. I completely appreciate what Gillian Mackay is saying.

I thank the minister for that, but I am a bit disappointed that she will not work with me to get the words right so that they are legally competent. I will press amendment 42.

Thank you.

Amendment 43 would reduce the safe zone distance from 200m to 150m. In its stage 1 report, the committee questioned why the default distance of safe access zones had been set at 200m, when evidence suggests that a distance of 150m would be sufficient for all locations except the Queen Elizabeth university hospital.

The committee therefore recommended an alternative approach of setting a standard distance of 150m for safe access zones in Scotland, then using the provisions that are set out in section 7 of the bill to extend that to address the specific circumstances of the Queen Elizabeth university hospital. That would mean that all protected premises that currently provide abortion services in Scotland would be covered. I am interested to hear the minister’s arguments for a requirement for a 200m zone, given that she has powers to extend the zone from 150m.

My concern is that there will be unintended consequences for those who are captured within this more extreme version of abortion buffer zones—more extreme than anywhere else in the world. Ultimately, my concern is that, although we want to deliver enforcement of the law, the impact on freedom of speech needs to be proportionate. This is about medical services and not other services that could be affected unintentionally.

I move amendment 43.

I thank the committee for welcoming me. I note that I twice attended the First Minister’s working group on abortion service buffer zones.

Amendment 42 would insert, at the start of the bill, a purpose clause that sets out the bill’s aims and intentions. It outlines that the bill’s purpose is to ensure that people seeking safe access to abortion services and healthcare workers who provide that essential healthcare should be able to access and provide abortion services

“without fear of intimidation or harassment”.

The amendment would strengthen the bill by specifically outlining its purpose in the bill. It would provide clarity and ensure that the bill remained defined and focused.

I move amendment 42.

Yes. Paul Sweeney will know that I am 100 per cent supportive of the bill. I just wanted to tease out some of the areas for which, for me, the boxes had not been ticked, if you like. However, I accept what Gillian Mackay has said.

I will not press my amendment, convener, but I still have concerns about the fact that I have not received reassurance from the minister on the use of ministerial powers to extend the zones.

Amendment 43, by agreement, withdrawn.

Amendments 9 to 14 moved—[Jenni Minto]—and agreed to.

Section 2, as amended, agreed to.

Section 3—Notification of proposed protected premises etc

Amendments 15 and 16 moved—[Jenni Minto]—and agreed to.

Amendments 44 and 45 moved—[Emma Harper]—and agreed to.

Section 3, as amended, agreed to.

After section 3

I refer to my previously discussed amendment 43 on the measurement of zones. You are saying that if, in the future, you need to extend the zones, you will take advice from persons who have an interest. However, in the past, when you were considering an increase in the distance from 150m to 200m, did you consult those who would be captured in that—or is that for the future rather than the past?

It has been noted in research that the degree of emotional distress is not proportionate to the act of filming, so making the offence explicit in the bill is really important. Minister, even if you are taking a broad-brush approach to offences that might cover such activity—and I would highlight what Meghan Gallacher said and quote your comment that it is “likely” to be covered—it is still important that any act that disproportionately impacts on women’s privacy and causes them to seek other treatments, or to defer treatment, be covered. The amendments should be considered in the round, because of their selective approach to an activity that should be prohibited specifically. I would be grateful if you could work with us on that.

I want to listen to Gillian Mackay’s summary, but could I intervene?