Seòmar agus comataidhean

Good morning, gentlemen. I do not think that anyone doubts the work of Creative Scotland or the artists that it supports. We fully understand the budget constraints that you are working within and I sincerely sympathise with you in that regard. I understand how tough that must be, particularly given the number of artists that you want to support and the fact that you receive so many applications. However, we have this application issue in front of us and serious questions need to be asked about the handling of the application and how best to move forward with Creative Scotland.

It has already been mentioned this morning that the funding application stated that, in the second phase of research and development, the applicant would be working on

“a sex scene with genital contact”.

We have also heard this morning that the budget and risk assessment included STI tests, but also lubricant. You have spoken about the STI tests with regard to safeguarding, but surely you would assume that the use of lubricant would mean that the scene would go much further than simulated sex and that it would move into non-simulated sex. Why were questions not asked about that part?

Okay, but it was mentioned in phase 2 of the research and development.

Up to this point, throughout the history of applications being processed and approved, have any concerns ever been raised about that framework or the guidance?

I will ask one final question, if I may, convener.

I understand what you have said this morning. However, the problem is that we have here two different assessments as to what has happened. We have the assessment from Creative Scotland and we have the assessment from the project itself, and there are contradictions throughout regarding the application process and whether the decision and the outcome of removing the funding from the application was disputed. I therefore need to ask a direct question. Those assessments cannot both be correct, so which one is correct?

Given what has happened, are there now intentions between Creative Scotland and the Scottish Government to re-look at this? I know that you said that you are strengthening the guidance and the framework, but is there an overall strategy that will need to be re-looked at in order to restore public confidence, given what has happened?

That appears to have been a serious overlooked element in this case, because I do not understand how that particular item could be placed in a budget and risk assessment if it was not going to be used for a particular purpose.

No.

Good morning to the committee, the minister and Gillian Mackay.

We have had quite a bit of conversation about signage and I was grateful for the opportunity to meet the minister and Gillian Mackay to talk about that issue. The intent of amendment 51 is to ensure that safe access zones for protected premises are clearly marked and to summarise the restrictions that will apply by virtue of the act within the safe access zones. I understand that the reasons for not including signage in the initial draft of the bill were about protecting women and not drawing close attention to where buffer zones are. However, I still have some concerns about the understanding of where a buffer zone will begin within the 200-mile radius—sorry, I mean 200 metres. Signage would enable clear distinctions of buffer zones, which would allow people to understand where a zone will begin and will not begin. I stress again that it is 200 metres and not 200 miles.

I understand that health boards may install signage in their areas if they wish. However, with amendment 51, I want to probe the matter further to allow a more open debate. I understand that the committee did a lot of work on the issue, but I would like to get more understanding from the minister of whether we could look at it further.

I move amendment 51.

I am grateful, convener, for allowing me the time to come back in.

I want to reflect on amendment 56 in the name of my colleague Rachael Hamilton and amendment 57 in my name. They are important amendments on deterrence, prevention and adding an additional layer of protection for vulnerable women seeking to access those healthcare services.

On the slight differences between the two amendments, it is good that they are different, as they bring in not only the element of filming but that of recording. The reason for lodging those amendments is that, with the consistent evolution of social media and the different ways in which they could find themselves being harassed by certain groups in the future, women could end up finding images online of themselves accessing those services, because groups are no longer able to stand outwith the healthcare clinics.

Certainly, my reason for lodging amendment 57 was to provide that additional layer of protection. If the opportunity is open, I would be grateful to work with anyone who is seeking to add any additional layers of protection for vulnerable women. I would be grateful for the minister’s comments on that, as I believe that Rachael Hamilton’s amendment and my amendment would bring an important additional element to the bill.

My amendment 52 would give ministers the power to

“specify protected premises for the purposes of the offence under subsection (1).”

That would represent an added layer of protection in relation to any legal challenge that could be brought in the future. That is the reason—it is short and sweet—for my amendment.