Seòmar agus comataidhean

I thank Ms Hamilton and Ms Gallacher for their offers. In Ms Gallacher’s second contribution, she talked about the crossover and, in some respects, the separation between the two amendments. I am content to meet you both to discuss the issue further, if you agree not to move your amendments today.

I apologise, convener—I have spoken for some time and I note that Ms Mackay intends to speak to a number of other amendments. As a result, I will limit myself to briefly setting out the Government’s position on them.

Amendment 23 is unnecessary, because of the way in which the bill is drafted. The person carrying out anti-abortion activity that is capable of being caught by the bill must already be in the zone at the same time as another person trying to access or provide services, unless the act has a continuing effect. The amendment, therefore, would be unworkable in practice.

Amendment 24 is unnecessary and would weaken the protections in the bill. As silent prayer is not in itself an offence under the current provisions, it does not need to be exempted. Moreover, doing so could allow conduct that has been shown to have the negative impacts that the bill seeks to prevent and create loopholes that could exempt other behaviour beyond silent prayer.

Turning to amendments 21 and 52 to 55, I would just add a point of clarification on amendment 21. The safe access zone does not include indoor spaces, including schools or places of worship. I hope that that gives Mr Balfour some clarity.

Amendments 21 and 52 to 55 would cut across one of the bill’s key aims—that is, the need for a preventative approach. Amendment 21 seeks to remove section 5 entirely, while amendments 52 to 55 would require regulations to be laid and approved before women and staff could be guaranteed protection within a zone. Until those regulations were passed, conduct that was intended to be public and to have particular harmful effects could be carried on. Under Mr Balfour’s amendment 21, there would be no scope to prevent that.

I urge members not to support the amendments in this group.

I know from conversations that I have had with Ms Gallacher that she did not lodge amendment 51 lightly and that she is aware of the complexities of the issue. Ms Mackay will speak about those complexities, particularly as regards the concerns of service providers. I will say only that I also have those concerns and that I share Ms Mackay’s hesitancy to overrule service providers when there is some doubt about the effectiveness of signage.

I want to talk about what the bill already requires and how that will be supplemented by the Scottish Government. Together, those things already represent a considerable package of efforts to ensure that people who are affected by zones will be made aware of them and their effects. First, as members are aware, the bill already requires that Scottish ministers publish and maintain a list of all safe access zones in Scotland. The list will include not only the name and address of all premises, but also maps that clearly identify the zones. As we know that anti-abortion groups tend to be well organised and often rely on online engagement to share information and plan activity, we believe that maintaining such a list represents a robust means of drawing attention to zones.

The Scottish Government has also committed to a targeted publicity campaign. That will include writing to known anti-abortion groups to make them aware of safe access zones and the criminal sanctions that will attach to activity in relation to them that would result in an offence. We continue to work through the details of the full campaign, but it is likely to also involve leaflet drops to residents within the zone and notices in public venues such as GP surgeries.

Finally, Police Scotland has told us of the approach that it anticipates taking to the policing of zones. It will involve a graduated response, beginning with engagement, explanation and encouragement before any enforcement action would be taken.

For all those reasons, I am of the view that signage would do little to raise awareness of zones that will not be achieved by other means, and therefore amendment 51 in general is unnecessary.

I thank Ms Mackay for setting out so clearly her reasons for lodging amendments 31, 33 and 34 and for opposing Mr Cole-Hamilton’s amendments.

I, like Ms Mackay, am grateful for Mr Cole-Hamilton’s support for the bill. I know that he has a sincere wish to ensure that it offers women and staff meaningful protection, both now and in the future. I believe that Mr Cole-Hamilton’s amendments reflect that, and I understand his wish to ensure that the Parliament will always have oversight of how ministers use what are, I admit, significant powers.

However, I fully support the arguments that were made by Ms Mackay. As Mr Cole-Hamilton knows only too well, having lent his voice to the cause for a number of years, the work to bring the bill to fruition has not always been easy. Having worked hard to ensure that the bill offers adequate protection, and having taken the time to assure ourselves of its fair balance between competing interests, we must now ensure that we can preserve both. That means having in place a process that will allow us to act without delay where the evidence tells us that some or all zones are no longer fit for purpose. I will not go over the reasons why that is so important again, but I confirm that Ms Mackay’s understanding of the requirements on the Government is correct.

Acting compatibly with the European convention on human rights is an obligation on ministers, not an optional extra or a matter of best practice, as I have said before. That means that every decision on using the powers in sections 7 and 8 of the bill would require the most rigorous scrutiny, by considering all available evidence and taking into account the whole circumstances. That would hold true whether we were considering one zone or all zones and whether the change was 5m or 50m. That also means that a limit on zone sizes is inherent in the process. If ministers act arbitrarily and extend a zone based on reasons that are not evidence based and that either infringe rights of freedom of expression, religion or assembly more than is justifiable, or do not go far enough to protect the article 8 rights of women and staff, they would not be acting compatibly with the convention. If we fail in that duty, we—rightly—can and would be held accountable.

By lodging amendment 34, Ms Mackay has ensured that the Parliament and anyone else with an interest will be able to scrutinise the degree to which we have discharged that duty. I hope that members will embrace that compromise and vote to accept amendments 31, 33 and 34, rather than compromise the bill by accepting Mr Cole-Hamilton’s amendments, well intentioned though they are.

Through the Scottish infected blood support scheme, we have made payments of £100,000 since October 2022. My understanding is that there are 22—

We know that there are 22 estates. Sam, do you know the exact numbers?

The interim recommendations involved a UK-wide compensation scheme, which would be administered by the UK Government. Payments for that element would therefore come from the UK Government.

I understand stakeholders concerns about that. I do not know the make-up of the external expert group, either. In one of the four-nations meetings, I asked for consideration to be given to having at least one Scottish member of the group. I do not know whether that has happened. I have some sympathy with the anonymity of the group being maintained. However, John Glen, the Minister for the Cabinet Office, is coming to Scotland next week and will meet the stakeholders. I hope that that will give them an opportunity to discuss the issue with him.

I am pleased that over the past year we have had—I think—four intergovernmental meetings on the matter. In addition, in the past few months, my officials have been meeting weekly, and sometimes twice weekly. We have a number of avenues through which to raise any points that we wish to raise with the UK Government. I also intend to join the stakeholders in meeting Mr Glen next week.

I thank Paul Sweeney for that offer. As the committee knows, we will have a debate on the LCM on the bill this afternoon and it is my intention, after having listened to contributions, to write to the UK Government outlining what is said in the chamber. I see no reason why the committee’s views should not also be shared, whether separately by you or as part of my letter. It would probably be better if you did it separately. I have no concerns about that.

As I said in response to Ruth Maguire’s question, the important thing is that we think about those who were infected and have been affected, and that we put those people at the centre of our decision making. I am sure that you will do that.

Thank you for the opportunity to give evidence on the legislative consent memorandum, especially as you have, I know, had to arrange this meeting at short notice. I am afraid that that is because, as the convener pointed out, the United Kingdom Government was able to table its amendments on infected blood compensation only at a very late stage at Westminster.

What happened to infected blood victims was a terrible tragedy, and the Scottish Government has apologised. The Scottish Government confirmed in its closing submissions to the Infected Blood Inquiry that it recognises the strong case for provision of compensation to all those who were infected with hepatitis and/or HIV as a result of infected national health service blood or blood products, and to their bereaved relatives. Given that context, I am supportive of the policy intent.

The amendments are the first step towards implementation, in full or in part, of the inquiry’s recommendations, as set out in its “Second Interim Report”. The inquiry recommended that compensation should be provided by one UK-wide scheme in order to ensure consistency of approach, regardless of where in the UK an applicant lives or where they were infected. The UK Government amendments do so by setting up a new arm’s-length body to be called the infected blood compensation authority, which will deliver the infected blood compensation scheme.

The amendments will ensure that people in Scotland will have access to the scheme on the same basis as those elsewhere in the UK. Much of the detail, including eligibility and payment levels, will need to be set out in regulations. I know that that has caused some concern; however, John Glen MP, who is UK Minister for the Cabinet Office, wrote to me on the day on which the amendments were tabled and I have replied to stress that the details of the compensation scheme should be set out as quickly as possible.

The inquiry’s “Second Interim Report” also recommended that further interim compensation payments of £100,000 should be made to certain relatives of infected people, following the £100,000 interim payments that were made to infected people or their bereaved partners in October 2022. In response, the amendments also provide for payments to the estates of infected people who have sadly died. That is being done as a pragmatic method of ensuring that family members of the deceased get some compensation reasonably quickly. In my letter to the Minister for the Cabinet Office, I stressed that those payments should be made as quickly as possible.

The UK Government’s last-minute tabling of amendments has left us in a difficult position, with practically no opportunity to negotiate changes. However, given that the amendments represent a concrete step towards both providing compensation to the victims of that terrible tragedy and ensuring that relatives, who have received nothing or very little so far, receive interim compensation, I recommend that the Scottish Parliament consents.

Through continued engagement with the UK Government, I will seek to ensure that the needs of the victims are put first and that the scheme works for all those victims in Scotland.???