Seòmar agus comataidhean

Mr Gulhane has pre-empted the second part of my comments on amendment 23. I agree that we do not know how staff might be affected. There are many different shift patterns in many of the hospitals that the bill will cover, and there is no way, generally, to know when staff are coming and going, so protection for those staff is essential.

As I acknowledged during the stage 1 debate, given the complex and challenging issues that the bill raises, it is right that we provide for a post-legislative review. My amendment 39 seeks to achieve that.

I am grateful for the consideration that Tess White and Rachael Hamilton have given to the matter. I note that there are some differences between our approaches. Ms White and Ms Hamilton have opted for annual reviews, whereas I have taken a more standard approach, with an initial review two years after the legislation comes into force and every five years thereafter.

It is my expectation that those reviews should not be a light-touch or tick-box exercise but, rather, should involve in-depth consideration of the legislation’s impact and effectiveness. The timings that I chose reflect that, because the reviews will have implications on staff time and the public purse. It is also important that the bill’s provisions are given time to bed in, so that the impacts of safe access zones can be fairly evaluated.

However, I recognise that members might feel that the significance of the issues that are raised by safe access zones means that something more regular is required. Although I am concerned by the implications of an annual review, if amendment 39 is agreed to today, I would be very happy to explore with Ms White and Ms Hamilton whether any changes to the timings of the reviews would be possible ahead of stage 3.

I note that the amendments that have been lodged by Ms White and Ms Hamilton would not require the reports to be laid before the Parliament; they would require them only to be published. My amendment 39 would require the reports to be published and laid before the Parliament, and I think that that would offer greater transparency and accountability.

Likewise, I note that there is a considerable difference between the specificity of my amendment 39 and that of Ms White’s amendment 58. As I have said, I share her desire to ensure that the reviews are robust, but I am also sensitive to the risk of being overly prescriptive, with the detail required removing the opportunity to gather a fuller and more informative picture. Again, if my amendment 39 is agreed to, I would be very willing to discuss the issue with Ms White ahead of stage 3.

I move amendment 39.

Good morning. Like the minister, I offer my thanks to the committee for its work so far. I know that we will not all reach the same conclusions this morning, but I also know that we will do so respectfully and collegiately. I am hopeful that we will achieve a stronger bill by the end of the process.

I thank Rachael Hamilton for her engagement with me and for her desire to collaborate to make the bill better. Other than that, I do not have anything to add to what the minister said.

I thank the minister for her contribution. I support everything that she said. It is not necessary for me to repeat the particular concerns with amendment 51 that the minister raised, but I have some more general concerns about a specific requirement for signage. Those concerns will not be new to Ms Gallacher, because they are things that we have already discussed.

As the committee heard during its evidence taking, signage is not a straightforward matter. During the extensive engagement with service providers ahead of the bill’s introduction, a consistent message was the concern that signs would draw attention to abortion services that might otherwise go unnoticed. As has been discussed a number of times since the bill’s introduction, that may present a particular challenge where women and staff are especially anxious about being identified—for example, in rural areas with small sites.

It is, of course, the case that zones must be publicised, and the minister has spoken of the steps that will be taken to publicise them. However, signs would be an on-going physical demarcation. They would be visible to every passer-by and not just to those who might wish to organise or attend planned anti-abortion activity. Part of the concern, therefore, is that they could provoke more ad hoc sporadic instances of targeting. In the light of some of the genuinely horrific stories from other countries, there is palpable anxiety among some staff about erecting such a permanent advertisement.

I accept that those concerns must be weighed up against what is fair and necessary for those who might wish to express opposition to abortion outside service sites. However, for me, it remains unclear that signs would provide the clarity that Ms Gallacher seeks. In the first instance, as even those who are opposed to the bill noted during stage 1, it is not clear that signs would be a useful method of demarcating a zone. For example, it would not be practical or desirable to display signs around the entire perimeter of a zone, and it is not possible to determine with certainty where, within the zone, groups or individuals who wish to participate in anti-abortion activity may choose to stand. It is, therefore, not possible to guarantee that signs would be visible at every point where activity might take place. Where signs were noticed, they might create a gathering point behind which anti-abortion groups could safely stand, exactly on the cusp of the safe access zone. That would not be illegal, of course, but it is not something that we would seek to encourage.

I therefore join the minister in urging Meghan Gallacher not to press amendment 51 and to work with me ahead of stage 3 if she feels that there is further work to do to ensure that zones are sufficiently publicised.

Good morning. I am pleased that the committee so far seems to be taking a public health approach to the issues. Mr Dunne, I want to challenge you on a couple of points.

You said that your organisation takes the safety of children very seriously. Having had a quick Google of a few of your members, I must ask, what are you doing to address the fact that some of your members are selling flavours that are clearly targeted at children? One of them in particular is selling a flavour called Super Mix, which everyone round this table who has any young people in their lives will know is also a variant of Haribo—something that children are given as a treat. How does that square with what you said about being serious about products that target children?

Forgive me, but my question was specifically framed around children and young people.

There are two sides to data collection. There is the collection of data on smoking and increasing age and, as you said, Dr Reid, acute harms from that will show up relatively quickly. For vaping, however, we could be looking for different data, because we have not seen the long-term chronic harms of vaping, particularly for young people who start as young as 10, 11 or 12—eight in some cases.

Refillable products are also still out there, and the industry can reinvent itself and come up with another product that is within the right price range for young people. We need to be alive to any of those evolutions.

On the research into vaping, what do we need to do to monitor the impacts of the disposables ban and to note any further trends and changes so that we can move policy and legislation quickly to react to what is going on?

That is great. Thanks.

How would the witnesses like any potential health benefits to be evaluated once the bill is passed? Obviously, it might take a while for the impact of some of the measures to show up in the population health data, but do the witnesses have any initial thoughts about how to monitor and evaluate the impact?

I am pleased that the cabinet secretary mentioned the third sector and the voluntary sector. They were among the people whom we spoke to on our visit to Skye, but I have also spoken to some who operate across bits of rural South Lanarkshire. Those organisations face logistical issues such as when they hear about funding. Some of them even referred to basic things such as not getting emails back from people in health boards and local authorities about how and where to access funding.

What more can the Scottish Government do to ensure certainty for organisations that are delivering vital services, whether it be in mental health or in other areas of health and social care? How can they have certainty about the most basic things, such as knowing more than a month in advance that they are going to get funding for the next quarter, for example?