The House of Keys has voted to adjourn consideration of the Safe Access Zones Bill until September, effectively halting progress on the private member’s legislation.
The Bill, introduced by Dr Michelle Haywood, aimed to create safe access zones around medical facilities and schools to protect people accessing services from harassment and intimidation.
However it has been criticised by some as being not fit for purpose or going too far in some areas.
Members voted 16 to six in favour of an adjournment motion moved by Kate Lord-Brennan, which will see the Bill’s clauses stage delayed until after Keys is dissolved ahead of the election.
Dr Haywood had sought to delay proceedings until April 28 to allow the Department of Health and Social Care time to consider amendments, but Ms Lord-Brennan successfully moved for the longer adjournment.
Insufficient
Speaking in the debate, Dr Haywood defended the need for the legislation, arguing existing public order laws were insufficient.
“The Public Order Act is reactive. It’s not preventative,” she said. “It requires police officers to wait until the behaviour becomes threatening, abusive or disorderly before they intervene.”
She added: “Lawful doesn’t necessarily mean harmless, and harm doesn’t always present as aggression.”
Lawrie Hooper spoke in support of the Bill, citing incidents during the Covid-19 vaccination programme and more recent examples involving school children.
“In my constituency, there were school kids going to school, being hassled, being harassed, being subject to some quite inappropriate behaviour, just trying to go to school, just trying to access health services that were provided from the school,” he said.
Vaccinations
Joney Faragher shared a personal account of children being targeted during school vaccination sessions.
“My son was amongst a group of people who were shouted at and even physically grabbed when they were on their way to get their second HPV vaccine when they’re in school,” she said. “This was so distressing for them.”
Implications
However, several members expressed concerns about the Bill’s scope and practical implications.
Julie Edge described the legislation as something that should go “to the incinerator”, while Rob Callister said he had “deep concerns” about the Bill since it was first introduced.
Jane Poole-Wilson questioned whether the approach was appropriate, noting the resource implications for government departments.
“I question whether the appropriate thing in a situation like this is to dial back to some first principles,” she said.
Protection
Reacting to the debate on Facebook, Dr Haywood said: “Despite the evidence presented of a real need to protect people accessing medical and social care services, a clear explanation of why existing legislation is not sufficient and the clear engagement of members in debating the Bill, the will of the House was to kill it off for now.
“From some of the debates it was abundantly clear that some members still didn’t understand the legislation, or were getting their assessment from some grossly distorted sources peddling mistruths and hyperbole.”