Seòmar agus comataidhean

That is really interesting. What would make that exercise more practical and meaningful?

Thanks for your explanation. I do not believe that an impact assessment has been done of the unintended consequences of people being captured in the 200m zone. The committee recognises that ministerial powers would be in place to extend the zone from 150m, which is already—almost—a standard buffer zone across the United Kingdom, except for Northern Ireland. It is probably at the farther end of the most extreme measurement in the world.

Does the minister not believe that the powers that are set out in the bill are sufficient to extend the zones? Indeed, it is suggested in the bill that 200m will be a minimum.

I will make my points in winding up. I did not want to interrupt, because I was interested to hear the full description in what the member had to say. I accept what Gillian Mackay has had to say on this specific subject, but my argument remains: there are already powers in the bill to extend the zones. That is important, because we do not know how the bill will shape itself and develop as we go forward. Buildings change—they change size and become smaller or larger—so having one size of 200m where that is not necessary will capture people in unintended consequences for those—

Yes.

Amendment 56 makes it a prohibited behaviour to film a person within a designated safe access zone and outlines penalties for such a breach. It is a focused amendment that comes into effect if a person is prevented, impeded or harassed in gaining access to abortion services within the buffer zone, or their decision is influenced by filming within that area.

It is worth sharing with the committee that the amendment is similar to a provision in the Abortion Services (Safe Access Zones) Act (Northern Ireland) 2023, which prevents intimidation or harassment of a person through filming within the safe access zone.

Furthermore, I bring members’ attention to the nuance between my amendment and amendment 57, in the name of my colleague Meghan Gallacher, which makes it an offence to record a person in a safe access zone. My amendment focuses on the effects of filming rather than the act of it. As it outlines, effects include

“influencing ... preventing or impeding another person from accessing, providing or facilitating the provision of abortion services,”

and

“causing harassment, alarm or distress to another person”

who is accessing or providing abortion services.

I see both amendments as important, and I look forward to hearing the minister’s view on them.

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.