Seòmar agus comataidhean

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Amendment 43, by agreement, withdrawn.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?

At the Queen Elizabeth university hospital, there are other facilities around the specific area that are encompassed in the zone, and I have felt as though I do not have enough information to reassure me that there would be no unintended consequences. I appreciate the work that the committee has done on the bill—you have obviously looked at it very closely. However, I felt that I needed more information on unintended consequences and proportionality, which is why I lodged amendment 43.

From the outset, I have been concerned that women have been put off accessing healthcare, which could be a danger to their health. That has been described to me by the charity Back Off Scotland.

I want to speak to Carol Mochan’s comment. There has always been an argument that a purpose clause is not necessary but, on Carol Mochan’s point, her own party brings forward purpose clauses in the context of other bills and argues that they are the right thing to do to make the bill clear. I know that the bill has been controversial among many, and I merely seek to bring the focus towards women’s health because we have been in danger of letting women down with regard to their health because of this situation.

On the minister’s point about legal concern, will she work with me to get the wording right if she has concerns, specifically about the reference to

“fear of intimidation or harassment”?

I think that a purpose clause would clarify the point that we are trying to make, namely the need to strengthen women’s health and access to women’s health services.

No problem.

This is the second time that I have tried to bring forward the particular argument for supporting local food producers to supply, through the procurement process, local schools and hospitals and local communities. I am not convinced that the framework in the Good Food Nation (Scotland) Act 2022 is going to be able to prioritise local procurement. When we debated it, there was very little support from the Scottish Government to review the current procurement process. However, I hear what the cabinet secretary says about the 2022 act being the right piece of legislation to take forward this aspect, through the consultation on, and delivery of, the local good food nation plans and so on. I am, therefore, happy not to press my amendment.

Amendment 200, by agreement, withdrawn.

Amendment 185 would require Scottish ministers to review payments that are made under the legislation that is listed in the Agriculture (Retained EU Law and Data) (Scotland) Act 2020. Briefly, I would like some reassurance from the cabinet secretary that the Scottish Government has the ability to monitor and evaluate the effectiveness of payments and the delivery of the required outcomes, because I am concerned about that. For example, will the powers that Scottish ministers have to shape the rural support plan allow for monitoring and evaluation of the effectiveness of the required outcomes?

I move amendment 185.

Yes, I will do so.

Amendment 137 moved—[Rachael Hamilton].