Seòmar agus comataidhean

That would be my view. However, I will write to the committee to confirm that.

I think that I was clear in my opening statement that anti-abortion demonstrations will still be able to occur in Scotland. We have been very clear about that. The only places for which we are legislating that they cannot happen—if the bill is passed—are within protected safe zones around establishments in Scotland that provide abortion services, of which there are currently 30.

That is a really important question. Rather than ask Johanna Irvine to reply at this point, I think that we will write to the committee with a response to it.

I think that that is a similar example to the one that Mr McKee gave. As I indicated, churches often put out signs, and their intent is more welcoming. I agree with Ross Greer that intent does not exist in that example, and that it is not reckless, either.

I do not believe that they were. My officials engaged regularly with anti-abortion groups when shaping the legislation.

That goes back to your previous question about balancing the different rights of people. We have done a lot of work to ensure that we have the right balance by indicating where a safe access zone begins and ends. If someone is accessing healthcare, they will want to do that ideally in the safest of environments, and because the bill is specific and is narrowly restricted to protests against abortion, we have balanced that correctly.

I accept that. That is why we have to ensure that the consultation is at the right level with the right people and that we always balance the different pieces of human rights legislation. The question would definitely be whether it was proportionate, and we would have to make sure that that was the case. That is the key thing that we would need to consult on.

We have been very clear in the bill that it is not about specific actions, but the intent of those actions. The committee got very strong evidence from women who were concerned about walking past a group of people who were standing silently, because it could be deemed to be silent judgment.

However, we have to be cognisant that different people experience things in different ways. It is not for me to say how the police would look at any actions, although they would look at them in the wider context of what else was happening around about them.

I go back to the point that—as I said in my opening statement—the safe zone is 200m, so the behaviour can happen elsewhere. It need not necessarily happen right beside the hospital. I was struck by the theological debate that took place in an earlier evidence session about where it is appropriate to pray and whether it is appropriate to pray so close to a facility that is providing abortions, where you could impede people’s access and cause alarm or distress.

However, as I have said, it is for the police to determine what they would need in order to prosecute.

Silent prayer is a form of vigil protest that is impacting on women attending abortion clinics, so yes.

I am sorry—I am slightly confused. I am not clear where you mean chapels are. If a woman was accessing abortion services and was in the protected building and felt that she wanted to speak to the spiritual adviser or the chaplain in the hospital, that would absolutely not be captured by the legislation.